Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SEVEN HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received a telegram of good wishes and congratulations on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the Parliament of Simon de Montfort from the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine Parliament. I will have the text placed in the Library where it can be seen by hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Ground Rents (Collection)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will introduce legislation to remove the obligation on certain leaseholders to collect ground rents from their neighbours on behalf of the ground landlord.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I am very conscious of the trouble, and even hardship, that this duty to collect ground-rents on neighbouring properties can cause, but I already have powers—under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and earlier legislation—that enable me to deal with the difficulty in the great majority of cases that come to my notice.
Because the existing powers to apportion these rents by Ministerial Order were too little known, I have issued a simple explanatory leaflet, and have sent copies to the Citizens Advice Bureaux around Manchester, where most of these cases occur.

Mr. Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this simplified explanation of the powers he already has is only just becoming known in an area which I have the honour to represent, where this problem is acute, bearing particularly heavily on older people? I trust that where problems arise due to interpretations of the powers already held we shall have every assistance from his Ministry in trying to help those who are burdened with this problem.

Mr. Willey: Yes. The steps we have taken have had considerable effect. Previously we were dealing with these cases at the rate of about 130 a year. We are now dealing with these cases at the rate of about 150 a month. If my hon. Friend has cases to which he wishes to


call my attention, I will certainly look at them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has answered this Question, and indeed the substance of his Answer, indicate that he has taken over from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government responsibility for landlord and tenant questions; and, if so, when did this transfer of responsibility take place?

Mr. Willey: No. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, if he reflects, that it is a specific responsibility that I have undertaken.

Home Timber Advisory Committee (Recommendations)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what recommendations he has received from the Home Timber Advisory Committee; and what action he proposes to take on them.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): On 26th May the Forestry Commission passed to my right hon. Friend a submission from the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee making recommendations on the future size of the forestry programme and on related problems such as land acquisition. As my right hon. Friend stated in the course of the debate on forestry on 14th June, this submission will be taken into account in the course of the Government's current review of the forestry programme.

Mr. Digby: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary place a copy of this submission in the Library, or is it regarded as confidential?

Mr. Skeffington: I will make inquiries to see whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman's request.

Forestry (Devon)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources how many acres of forestry have been planted by the Forestry Commission in the year 1964 and in the first half of 1965 in the County of Devon.

Mr. Skeffington: The figures available relate to the planting season, which ends in May. In the season which has just ended the Forestry Commission planted 534 acres in Devon. In the previous season it planted 537 acres.

Mr. Mills: Is this enough? In my view, nothing like enough acres are being planted in the West Country. Would the Minister consider encouraging the Commission to do more than this and, indeed, to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see if some of the poorer land could be turned to use for forestry?

Mr. Skeffington: The question whether it is enough must be related to the Commission's commitments in other parts of the country. There are 3,300 acres more to be planted in the county, and it is hoped to accomplish that within the next 6 or 7 years.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister having a survey of the West Country carried out, particularly of Devon and Cornwall, to see what extra land would be suitable for afforestation?

Mr. Skeffington: Private studies are being made, to which we hope to have access. If they are insufficient, we may have to supplement them.

Forestry Commission

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will make a further statement on the reorganisation of the work of the Forestry Commission; and whether it has been given new terms of reference.

Mr. Willey: The Forestry Commission has not been given new terms of reference, and I have nothing to add to the statements I made in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 10th May and in the debate on the Seventh Report from the Estimates Committee on 14th June.

Mr. Digby: When the new Commission is complete, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a new directive making clear the position of the Government in support of forestry policy?

Mr. Willey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are reviewing the planting programme and, pursuant to that, we will be making a statement.

Land Commission

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when he proposes to introduce legislation to set up a Land Commission.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources when legislation setting up a Land Commission will be introduced.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Members must be patient a little longer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While seeking to exercise that admirable quality, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that very precise proposals on this matter were advocated by himself and his right hon. Friends at the General Election nine months ago, and that great uncertainty and confusion are being caused by the fact that these proposals have not been followed either by legislation or even so far by the promised White Paper? If a Bill is not coming forward this Session, would it not be in the interests of all concerned to say so?

Mr. Willey: As to the first part of that supplementary question, yes, I am so aware. As to the second part, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a question of Parliamentary time, and if he will give me assistance through the usual channels I shall be much obliged.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a little difficult to give even as agreeable a Minister as himself such assistance until one knows what he has in mind? Is he further aware that the fact that the various leaks from his Department completely contradict the specific election pledges made last October only adds to the confusion, with its very serious effect on the bringing forward of land for development, which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for creating?

Mr. Willey: I have in mind legislation to implement the election manifesto. I need Parliamentary time to implement that and, as I say, I shall be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he can help me in that regard.

Planning Appeals

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources in respect of how many individual planning appeals he has been consulted since his appointment.

Mr. Willey: It is not in accordance with normal practice to give particulars of discussions between Ministers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for general supervision of the use of land? One of the major methods by which the Government make their decision effective is through the decisions on planning appeals. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to assure the House that he has even been consulted on one of these, he must leave the House and the country very much in doubt as to whether his planning responsibilities exist.

Mr. Willey: If the House accepts the assumption of the right hon. Gentleman it will be misinformed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge my assumption, is it not extremely easy for him to give the figures?

Mr. Willey: No, the right hon. Gentleman knows—he has held office—that it is not the convention to disclose discussions between Ministers.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many' times he has been consulted concerning agricultural land which is liable to go out of production and into other use?

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that point.

Mr. Mawby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that had there been a Minister of Land and Natural Resources years ago we would not have problems such as urban overspill and encroachment into the Green Belt? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is consulted and that those consultations bear some fruit?

Mr. Willey: I can assure the House that I am consulted in accordance with the functions which have been given to me.

Mr. Corfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past where planning decisions have been turned down or accepted on the advice of the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Transport, this has always been perfectly well known? Is it not just as easy for him to make it known when he intervenes in any way in planning decisions?

Mr. Willey: If the hon. Gentleman has in mind any specific case perhaps he will put down a Question.

Tree Preservation Orders

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, whether, in arranging the review of the procedure for making tree preservation orders, he will ensure that representatives of the woodland owners concerned will be consulted from the outset and throughout the review, as recommended by the Estimates Committee in its Eighth Special Report.

Mr. Skeffington: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the final observation of my right hon. Friends recently published in the Eighth Special Report from the Estimates Committee. In this they stated that the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, which represents the interests of private woodland owners in England, Scotland and Wales, would be fully consulted in the review of the arrangements for tree preservation orders on land suitable for forestry.

Mr. Hill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in that observation he said that he would consult the woodland owners at the appropriate time and that the implication was that the inquiry was already in being? Would it not be much more satisfactory to have the woodland owners concerned in at the beginning?

Mr. Skeffington: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of going back on the observation. We are only too anxious to get their views when we are ready to receive them.

Local Authorities (Purchase of Property)

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he will take steps to require local authorities to apply similar provisions of purchase at market value to property threatened by possible development, as applies to property in areas which are designated for development.

Mr. Willey: Local authorities are required to buy certain classes of property when its value is depreciated by designation for development under the "blight" provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. It would put an impossible burden on authorities to extend these provisions so as to require them to buy any property whose value was affected by possible development.

Mr. Elliott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very real problem here in that there are often vast areas which will be possible areas of redevelopment? Is he aware that in the City of Newcastle, for instance, there are three possible schemes for the Jesmond Road-Stephenson Road Motorway? Does he realise that this is having a frightful effect on the value of properties in all three possible areas? Will he look at this to see if he can do something about the protection of house-owners who wish to sell in such circumstances?

Mr. Willey: I am aware of the problem. I think the 1962 Act struck a balance. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to look at the cases to which he has referred me I will do so.

Mr. Corfield: Will the Minister bear in mind that local authorities have powers to purchase in advance of requirements, even though the case does not actually fall within the definition in the Act to which he has referred? Will he encourage them to do so where hardship arises, and pay the same value which they would do if the "blight" provisions were in operation?

Mr. Willey: This is a case where one has to strike a balance and not impose too heavy a financial load on the local authorities. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to call attention to a case in which he thinks there is hardship I will look at it.

Pennine Way

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources what estimates are being made of the use of the Pennine Way since it was opened along its full extent earlier this year.

Mr. Willey: No estimate of the use of the Pennine Way has yet been made, but the National Parks Commission has the point under consideration.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is willing to carry out some further investigation into this matter? It would be of great interest to know how many people are using the Pennine Way.

Mr. Willey: I share my hon. Friend's interest. I believe that the National Parks Commission is discussing this with the officers of the parks planning authorities tomorrow, and I shall be anxious to learn the result of their discussions.

Long-distance Footpaths

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources whether he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing long-distance footpaths, other than the Pennine Way.

Mr. Willey: Nine long-distance routes, other than the Pennine Way, have been approved and are in course of negotiation. The nine routes involve a total of 1,023 miles and 134 local authorities. New rights of way for which negotiations are not yet completed total 135 miles; they vary from a few yards to 15 miles of pathway.
The National Parks Commission is also considering proposals for two new long-distance routes.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask whether he is aware that while the routes have been generally approved, the negotiations take an appalling length of time? Has he any suggestion to make as to how these negotiations can be speeded up?

Mr. Willey: I am aware of the recommendations made in the Reports of the National Parks Commission. These we are considering in the light of our review of the 1949 Act.

Mr. Ramsden: As these long-distance paths—this applies also to part of the Pennine Way—may often go along disused railway tracks where the lines have been pulled up, could the right hon. Gentleman liaise with the railway authorities and the Minister of Transport and try to see that the bridges are not always destroyed when the lines are pulled up? These tracks often have amenity possibilities and the bridges are necessary.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to this matter. I have been considering the use of disused railways as green paths, and certainly the point that he has made is one that we shall consider.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland, and are there plans for these paths in Scotland?

Mr. Willey: This does not affect Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he protects rights of way where there is possible development along a portion of long-distance paths—say, forestry development?

Mr. Willey: That is certainly a matter which I will consider.

Forestry (Hampshire)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources how many acres of forest have been planted and replanted in Hampshire by the Forestry Commission since the beginning of 1964.

Mr. Skeffington: The figures available relate to the planting season, which ends in May. In the 1963–64 season, the Commission planted 297 acres and replanted 537 acres in Hampshire. In 1964–65, the figures were 203 acres and 699 acres respectively.

Mr. Cordle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind, in the interests of better farming, that a lot of small woodlands which have been done away with and hedgerow trees must be replanted if the acreage is to be maintained? Can the hon. Gentleman say what scheme he has in mind to replant and to further the interests of afforestation in Hampshire? The figures quoted were good, but they are not good enough.

Mr. Skeffington: There are about 5,000 acres remaining to the Commission in Hampshire which it is proposed to replant in the next five or six years. In addition, further planting will take place in the New Forest itself. In the previous season, ending in May, 142 acres were planted in the New Forest area and 304 acres replanted. The work going on in the county is up to the estimates of expenditure which we have been able to make for individual counties but if we can further increase it we shall do so.

Dartmoor National Park

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources if he has considered the memorandum on National Land Use and the Dartmoor National Park submitted by the Standing Committee on National Parks of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Willey: The memorandum which was submitted on 19th June has been acknowledged and is receiving consideration by my right hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that arguments in the memorandum for the removal of damaging military training from Dartmoor are most convincing? Is it accepted that National Park amenity considerations will have priority in future?

Mr. Willey: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on a document which I have just received, but we will consider it expeditiously and make a statement.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the Minister give an assurance that proposals will not be accepted which will preserve rural England at the expense of rural Scotland? Although the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for Scotland, will he give an undertaking that before any of these movements are transferred to the Highlands he will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Willey: I can assure the hon. Member that there will be full consultations and that all factors affecting this question will be considered.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend consider the points made in this

memorandum when he considers amending the National Parks Act?

Mr. Willey: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what is needed is a happy balance and that the military are very profitable to some of our smaller towns around Dartmoor? Will he maintain a happy balance between the National Parks, the military and the small farmers?

Mr. Willey: I assure the hon. Member that I am a happy balancer.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend say that he will try to do a little more to rehabilitate Dartmoor National Park than the party opposite did during the 13 years it was in power?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Cement Supplies (Norfolk)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he is aware that there is currently a shortage of cement in Norfolk; and what steps he is taking to maintain supplies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): A marginal gap between supply and demand is affecting cement supplies in most parts of the country. I have no evidence to suggest that the situation in Norfolk is exceptional.
My right hon. Friend has met the producers and they are increasing supplies from home capacity and will also continue to import cement until home supplies match demand.

Mr. Hill: As the cement industry has a brilliant record of expansion and is ahead of its E.D.C. target, and as imports of cement now seem to be becoming scarce, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to provide for more economical use by revising building regulations so as to secure a more efficient use of cement?

Mr. Boyden: The reviewed building regulations are to come shortly. Deliveries of cement in 1964 were 22 per cent. higher than before and 5 per cent. higher


in the first part of 1965 than in the corresponding period of 1964. New production is coming during the course of this year and in 1966 and very large orders are being placed abroad and are being brought in gradually this year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind that there is a serious shortage of cement in the southwest of Scotland? Will he give that problem his attention? It is holding up housing schemes to a considerable extent.

Mr. Boyden: It has not only my attention but the attention of my right hon. Friend, of cement makers, and of a considerable number of Members of Parliament. We are doing all we can to see that supplies are kept up.

Mr. Sharples: Can the hon. Gentleman give the quantities imported and tell us where they were imported from?

Mr. Boyden: This year 600,000 tons are being imported at more than twice the cost of British cement. The difficulty at the moment is shipping.

Mr. Urwin: In view of the investments now taking place and estimated to take place in the next few years, how long will it be before the shortage is overcome?

Mr. Boyden: We hope that it will be overcome very soon but I cannot be a prophet in this matter. The cement people themselves have given estimates and things have not turned out according to their estimation.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman referred to a meeting with the cement manufacturers. What steps are being taken to ensure that supplies which are agreed should be maintained for local authority housing are being so maintained? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had two letters this morning from building firms in my constituency which are having to lay off men in local authority housing because of the shortage?

Mr. Boyden: The manufacturers gave an undertaking that they would give priority to housing and public building generally. They are trying, but the position at the moment is not as easy as it might be.

Trooping the Colour (Cushions)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is aware that the cushions provided for the use of guests viewing the Trooping the Colour ceremony stained the clothing of guests; and what action he proposes to take.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): Yes, Sir. I am prepared to consider making exgratia payments to those whose clothing was stained by the cushions; I am very sorry about this.

Mr. Costain: Would the right hon. Gentleman give me a further explanation why these cushions were used? Is he aware that a private supplier of green cushions has had his trade diminished because of this scare? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that the private enterprise cushions did not stain? It was the Minister's party-coloured cushions that offended.

Mr. Pannell: I can assure the hon. Member that the red cushions which were the offending ones—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—there was no political significance in this—were bought during the term when the hon. Member was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister. I hope that what I have said completely exonerates the private contractors. All these cushions were cushions which belonged to the Ministry itself. In the compass of a Parliamentary Answer I cannot go into the long document and the inquiries which I had made arising out of this matter, but if any claims are to be made against my Ministry they should be submitted in the first instance to Room 133, Lambeth Bridge House, S.E.1.

Mr. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the duty of a Parliamentary Private Secretary is to cushion the Minister and not take an interest in cushions supplied by the Ministry?

Canadian-Type Timber Houses

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many Canadian-type timber houses have been erected by his Department in this country in the last 12 months; and how many have been ordered by local authorities.

Mr. C. Pannell: A new town corporation is in negotiation for 170 houses and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has approved 6 houses to be erected by a local authority.

Mr. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this number of orders? In considering this system, will he bear in mind that it uses a large amount of plaster board which is in short supply? Will he consider how the use of plaster board in this type of construction can be avoided?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Renée Short: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what these timber houses cost? Does not he think that they are too expensive for the local authorities? Could not the houses be made here and the materials imported from rouble areas and not from more expensive dollar areas?

Mr. Pannell: I do not at the moment know the answer to my hon. Friend's Question. If she will put a Question down I will try to answer it.

Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that nothing will be done to discourage the use of timber-framed houses as a method of construction? Is he aware that they have proved satisfactory in other countries and that it should assist us in our trade relations with Canada?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Urwin: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are several firms in this country manufacturing timber houses which could be used, perhaps, to better advantage economically than imported Canadian houses? Second, is he satisfied, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, about the fire risks which prevail in timber construction?

Mr. Pannell: There has been a great deal of experience in timber-construction houses in other parts of the world. I do not know so much about the fire risk. We are prepared to consider on its merits any firm which builds houses, but I think that it would be rather wrong, after having sent a mission to Canada, if we were to attempt to disparage something

on which the Canadians have co-operated greatly with this country.

Sir C. Osborne: If the Minister is not at the moment aware of the cost of these houses, will he be good enough to inform himself and let the House know what the cost comparison is with traditional houses? [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."] I am asking the Minister himself, not a twerp of a back bencher. Will the Minister also say what is the expected life of these houses compared with traditional houses?

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me on that, I shall attempt to set the matters out in great detail. When we first had the Question from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) we were rather expecting another angle of questioning—I shall not say of attack—on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Liverpool Stanley Hospital

Mr. Dunn: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the weekly cost, in expenditure and depreciation of equipment, of Liverpool Stanley Hospital standing idle; if he will state the aggregate cost since the hospital closed; from which funds the cost is being borne; and for how long he proposes this state of affairs should continue.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Excluding depreciation of equipment, which cannot readily be assessed but is small, about £300 per week; £5,367 up to the end of May; from Exchequer funds allocated to the board of governors for running the United Liverpool Hospitals; so long as the possible need to re-open this hospital remains.

Mr. Dunn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not aware that this is still a subject of much concern in the Kirkdale constituency and constituencies geographically allied to mine? Will he take the necessary steps to bring to the notice of the regional hospital board the cost involved in depreciation and idle equipment, and, at the same time, ask that immediate action be taken to bring forward proposals for the use of this building and the idle equipment now standing there?

Mr. Robinson: As my hon. Friend knows, this hospital is being retained on a care and maintenance basis in the period before the new department at Walton Hospital comes into service in, possibly, May, 1966, in case the other hospitals in the area cannot cope with the work previously done there. On the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I now have under consideration a proposal that the regional hospital board should reopen the hospital as one in a series of consequential moves arising from the impending closure of a hospital accommodating geriatric patients.

Mrs. Braddock: Has my right hon. Friend any information about pressure by the previous Government to close this hospital as soon as possible? Is he aware that the board of governors was under very great pressure to close it, and had to close it, because of decisions taken by the previous Minister of Health?

Mr. Robinson: Since I came into office, the matter has come before me also; but it was generally considered that the right answer was to close it and to keep it on a care and maintenance basis during the interim period. It may well be that a different use will now he found for the hospital.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not a great pity that this hospital is not used in any way, whereas the chest hospital, also closed recently, has been taken over by the education authority and its use as an overseas students' hostel refused? Is there any chance of one being used temporarily for this purpose?

Mr. Robinson: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the present use of this hospital is that determined by the hospital board, and, on the whole, I think it came to the right decision.

Hospitals, North Liverpool (Casualty and Out-patient Departments)

Mr. Alldritt: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the anxiety of doctors in the area, if he will make inquiries to find out to what extent the pressure on the casualty and out-patient departments at Bootle Hospital and others is due to

the closure of Liverpool Stanley Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: New accident and emergency cases at Bootle and the four other North Liverpool hospitals increased by 11 per cent. in the first five months of this year compared with the corresponding period in 1964. But this 1964 figure was 7½ per cent. up on 1963, and I cannot, therefore, say how far the continued increase in 1965 was due to the closure of the Stanley Hospital. The number of out-patients attending the Stanley Hospital was not large enough to increase significantly the pressure on other out-patient departments.

Mr. Alldritt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern which is being expressed by doctors in the locality about the delays in the treatment of casualties in this area due to the severe increase in the other four hospitals in the area?

Mr. Robinson: I am not aware of that, and the figures I have do not suggest a severe increase. At Bootle Hospital the number of new accident and emergency attendances in the first five months of the year actually increased by a lesser percentage this year than in the previous year. The total out-patient load at the Stanley Hospital represented no more than 7 per cent. of the total load of the other five hospitals which have now assumed it.

Liverpool-Bootle-Crosby Area

Mr. Alldritt: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, since the closure of Liverpool Stanley Hospital, patients in urgent need of hospital medical treatment have had to be sent to Southport, Ormskirk and Birkenhead because there were no beds available in the North Liverpool-Bootle area; and what action he will take in this matter.

Mr. K. Robinson: My information is that there has been no increase in the number of admissions of Liverpool residents to hospitals outside the city.

Mr. Alldritt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are receiving growing complaints on this matter, and will he agree that, if the regional hospital board it not aware of the facts, it is not in a position to indicate where new hospitals should be located because its information must be inaccurate?

Mr. Robinson: I have no reason to believe that the information which has been given to me is inaccurate. I am told that the total of admissions arranged by the emergency bed bureau to hospitals outside the city during the first five months of 1965 was less, in fact, than during the corresponding period of 1964.

Mr. Simon Mahon: asked the Minister of Health if, in the planning of hospital arrangements for the North Liverpool-Bootle-Crosby region, he will take account of the proposal of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to build a new £65 million deep-water dock, the size of a new port, north of Gladstone Dock.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): Yes, Sir. The new accident and emergency centre now being built at Walton Hospital will have sufficient capacity to deal with the accident cases likely to arise from a dock of this size.

Mr. Mahon: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, may we have an undertaking that the Stanley Hospital may be reopened and the Bootle Hospital casualty department not closed until these other arrangements have been made? Second, may we be assured that there will be consultation with the local authorities before any further closures take place, and will my hon. Friend give a definitive statement about the future of Bootle Hospital?

Mr. Loughlin: As my hon. Friend is aware, there always are consultations with local authorities before closures take place. We feel that this new unit, which will be completed in April, 1966, will be able to deal with the situation. So far, there has not been a definite decision to build the new dock. We think that it will be done, but the new unit will be there in time.

Registration Officers

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister of Health what improvements he plans in the machinery through which the conditions of service of registration officers is negotiated; what has been the reason for the delay in announcing the new salary scales; and how he proposes to ante-date the new awards.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have no locus in the National Joint Council which negotiates the salaries and conditions of service of registration officers but I am exploring the possibilities of setting in train some form of inquiry into their pay structure with the co-operation of the Council. I am informed that there is at present no salary claim on behalf of registration officers before them.

Sir T. Beamish: Does not the Minister of Health feel that there is something seriously wrong when such a public-spirited and highly representative body as this feels so very much frustrated, as he knows it does, following discussions with its representatives recently? Will he use his good offices to speed up the negotiations?

Mr. Robinson: I am using my good offices in rather difficult circumstances, because I have no locus. The difficulty is that registration officers are not employed by local authorities but they are paid by them, and it is, therefore, by agreement that their conditions and pay are negotiated on the National Joint Council. I am very anxious to make progress, and I am moving as fast as I can in this matter.

Lord Balniel: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is probably a quite strong case for an independent inquiry covering the whole range of Health Service negotiating machinery, because not only are there these quite serious delays but about 130 cases have been referred to arbitration since 1948, which would surely indicate that there is a lack of confidence to some degree in the existing machinery?

Mr. Robinson: I think that there was a lack of confidence, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at the records since last October he will see that the situation is very much better now than it was in the time before the General Election.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

General Practitioners (Resignations)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce regulations to ensure that doctors wishing to resign from the local executive council's list shall submit such resignations personally in


order to avoid the possibility of the resignations which were signed six months ago in one set of circumstances now being sent in when circumstances have changed.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I doubt if such a change is necessary.
In the circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend, it would be open to any doctor to request the executive council to disregard a notice sent in on his behalf.

Mr. Pavitt: The safeguard which the Minister has announced in his Answer will be welcomed, but is he aware that, during the time when the pressure was on, quite a number of doctors were almost intimidated into putting their notices in and it is, therefore, most desirable, now that temperatures have cooled a little, that there should be a breathing space before they are actually applied?

Mr. Robinson: I had a certain amount of information about alleged intimidation, but I think that, as my hon. Friend's question implies, these resignations are very much out of date now, having been collected for the most part during February and March.

Mr. Frederic Harris: There is confusion in the public mind at the moment about the exact position of the doctors vis-à-vis the Minister of Health. Will the Minister be in a position at an early date to make a clear statement to the country as a whole of what the real position is?

Mr. Robinson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may make a clear statement now. The fact is that the conference of local medical committees on 16th June and the special representative meeting of the B.M.A. on 23rd June voted against submitting the resignations, and therefore the question of resignation does not now arise. The negotiators are empowered to continue negotiating with me, and I have no reason to believe that these negotiations will not be brought to a successful conclusion in time for implementation by April next.

Mr. Will Griffiths: In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said about the decision of the doctors' representatives recently about withdrawing their notices,

may I ask whether he would regard the notices given some months ago as valid if they were to be used in the future?

Mr. Robinson: I think that the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) is hypothetical for the reasons that I have just given. I can only repeat that if any doctor felt that his resignation was no longer valid and it was sent in, it would be a simple matter for him to write to the executive council saying, "Please disregard my notice."

General Practitioners (Negotiations)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if he will review the machinery he now uses for maintaining contact with general practitioners within the National Health Service with a view to recognising one national assembly only with the right to represent all doctors, and that to be based on local medical committees which shall have an increased democratic function to fulfil.

Mr. K. Robinson: I share my hon. Friend's wish that I should maintain contact with the whole body of general practitioners and there is already machinery, based on local medical committees, whereby I can do this.
It is primarily for the profession to decide how they wish to be represented in negotiations with me.

Mr. Pavitt: While I do not wish to interfere with the profession's right to decide its own negotiating machinery, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not agree that it is very confusing to have these three national conferences, which have recently met, talking about resignations? Would it not facilitate the negotiations if the profession had only one conference? Would my right hon. Friend look again at the powers which he gives to local medical committees? They have conducted a ballot about resignation. I understand that that is not my right hon. Friend's responsibility. Is it, therefore, admissible that this kind of undemocratic machinery should exist as part of the framework?

Mr. Robinson: It is a fact that what local medical committees do in that connection is a matter not for me but for


the profession. I agree with my hon. Friend that the position, with these various bodies taking decisions, is confusing, but it arises out of the structure of the medical profession, which I am always assured is completely democratic. Perhaps that is why it is rather complicated. However, I am not at all sure that the matter would be simplified if all doctors were represented by a single negotiating body in their discussions with me.

Mr. Wood: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the suggestion by his hon. Friend that he should restrict the freedom of doctors to band together in any association that they want? We believe with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter rightly left to the doctors, and I hope that he will confirm that that is his view.

Mr. Robinson: I am certainly very willing to leave it to the doctors. I do not accept the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman that that was what my hon. Friend was putting forward. I think that what my hon. Friend wanted to do was to see whether there was some way of simplifying the machinery. If there is to be simplification, I think that it must come through the initiative of the profession itself.

Dr. Wyndham Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider some action in regard to the Chairman of the Birmingham Executive Council, Mr. Rhydderch, who, in a very tense situation in relation to general practitioners in Birmingham, is issuing inflammatory political statements?

Mr. Robinson: I do not accept for a moment the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the action of the Chairman of the Executive Council in Birmingham, who is faced with a difficult situation. If the hon. Gentleman has any questions to ask about the situation in Birmingham, I should be glad if he would put them on the Order Paper.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was not seeking to interfere with the right of doctors to have their own machinery, but my hope is that in the negotiations it might be in their own interests if he would seek to persuade them to have a more streamlined and effective method, which would be for

their own good and the good of the country?

HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what progress has been made during the past three months with regard to the Special Report of the Committee's conclusions, based on the general review of the administration of Refreshment Department; and if she will present an interim report to the House containing recommendations for increasing the wages of the catering staff and improving conditions for them.

Mrs. Braddock: The general review by the Kitchen Committee of the administration of the Refreshment Department is still in progress. I hope, however, that the Committee will be in a position to make an interim Special Report before the House rises for the Summer Adjournment, which will deal, among other matters, with the wages and conditions of staff.
I should like to take the opportunity to place on record on behalf of the Kitchen Committee and, I hope, of all Members our thanks for the attention given to us by the staff during the recent all-night sittings, and this applies to the Manager and every individual member of the staff.

Hon. Members: Hear hear.

Sir Knox Cunningham: While I appreciate that reply from the hon. Lady, may I ask whether she would, in view of the recent increase in the price of meals and of salaries of Members, think of recommending an immediate increase in the remuneration of the staff, who give very excellent service to the House?

Mrs. Braddock: I did not want to have to say this, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little behind the times. This matter has already been dealt with to a very large extent and will be recorded so that it can be discussed by the House when our Special Report is submitted.

Mr. Lubbock: Might I heartily associate my right hon. and hon. Friends


and myself with what the hon. Lady has said about the splendid service given to us during the all-night sittings? Is the hon. Lady aware that there are some part-time staff who are not paid extra for additional hours of service? Will she look into this immediately?

Mrs. Braddock: The Committee is looking into the whole question of payment of staff, and it has already dealt with a great many of the staff. There may be one or two more still to be dealt with. All these matters will be included in the Report which we hope to have ready for the House before it rises for the Summer Recess.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I appreciate the recent increase, of course, but would not the hon. Lady consider making a proper and substantial review of the remuneration, and making it even before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mrs. Braddock: The Committee has already dealt with this position, and I do not think there is any member of the Refreshment Department staff who has not received an increase in salary already. The Kitchen Committee will be meeting today, and it will deal with any matters which are outstanding and consider its Report for submission to the House, which we hope will be before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

River Authorities (Form W.R.5.)

Mr. Bessell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to ensure that river authorities replace Form W.R.5, being the application for a licence of right, with a simplified version capable of easy interpretation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The information asked for in this form is essential to enable river authorities to carry out their licensing duties under the Water Resources Act, 1963. There will be no occasion to use the form after 30th June.

Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the complexity of this form is such that many farmers are unable to

complete it without professional assistance? Furthermore, it is therefore impossible for these farmers to submit their returns by 30th June. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that only about 500 out of 1,000 of these forms have been received in Cornwall? Will he instruct the water boards to extend the time limit?

Mr. Mellish: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been complaints about the form but the information was required and, indeed, the need for it has been debated twice in this House already. If there is anything we can do, we shall do it.

Mr. Peter Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in my years as a farmer, I have filled in some pretty bad forms but that this form is the limit? Should it not be withdrawn and a simpler form put in its place?

Mr. Mellish: The form is a consequence of the Water Resources Act, 1963, passed by the party opposite.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that "taking note" is not good enough? The time limit expires on 30th June. Will he now take action and give us an assurance that those farmers who, through no fault of their own, fail to send forms in by then, will be given extra time? This is very important to them, because, if they miss the date, they will not get a licence of right.

Mr. Mellish: I can give that assurance to the House. My Department will help those people who are unable to fill in the form and we shall have consultations with the water authorities.

Nationalised Industries (Land)

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent he proposes to allow local authorities to acquire redundant land at present within the ownership of the nationalised industries, and what conditions will be attached to such acquisition.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend is prepared to issue loan sanction to local authorities for the acquisition of land by agreement from nationalised industries wherever he is satisfied that they have a good case for buying the land.

Mr. Urwin: I thank my hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. I hope that, in areas where there are fairly large tracts of land redundant because of rail closures, the conditions of transfer will at least be favourable to local authorities, which are the appropriate bodies to carry out developments within their districts.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend's policy is to encourage local authorities to purchase land for housing as an essential part of their function. We shall do all we can to help.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman, in his reply, used the words "by agreement". Does that rule out the possibility of local authorities acquiring land where nationalised industries have control? If it does, then that is a retrograde step.

Mr. Mellish: If a local authority reports difficulties with a nationalised industry we shall gladly intervene and help it acquire the land.

Mr. Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past, some of the nationalised industries have given preferential treatment to private enterprise in selling land that local authorities have also wanted? Will he ensure that, in future, preferential treatment is given to local authorities to purchase land needed for housing and other building from nationalised industries?

Mr. Mellish: I again make it clear that it is the Minister's policy, in conjunction with the nationalised industries, to get all the land possible for local authorities to carry out their housing programmes. If there are individual difficulties in obtaining land from any bodies, either Ministries or nationalised industries, my Department will be glad to intervene and do what it can to help.

Mr. Costain: May we take it that similar facilities will be given for War Office land that becomes redundant? Will the hon. Gentleman make special representations to the War Department to make certain that it has not available land which is not at present being properly used?

Mr. Mellish: Whereas the procedure was that, as land became available, it went for private auction, today it has to be considered for public use.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT (ISLE OF SHEPPEY)

Mr. Boston: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the accident on the railway line between West Minster and Queenborough on the Isle of Sheppey on Friday 25th June, 1965, in which two young children were killed.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I understand that three children, one aged four and the others three, climbed from marshland on to the railway embankment through a 10-strand wire fence, and the two younger ones were electrocuted. The older one stayed away from the rails and was unharmed. Police on the road nearby saw the children and tried to stop an approaching train from Sheerness in order to pull the children away from the live rail but the train driver was not able to stop his train before passing over the bodies. I should like to express my very sincere regrets and those of my right hon. Friend that this tragic accident should have happened.

Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend allow me to be associated with him in his message of sympathy to the families involved in this tragic accident? Can he say whether the West Minster unmanned level crossing was in any way involved in the accident? Is he aware that there is a long history of attempts to get something safer—for instance, a footbridge—where this unmanned level crossing is? Even if it was not involved, will he look at the matter? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the safety precautions and the wire fencing in the area where the accident occurred?

Mr. Swingler: The crossing was not involved in the accident. It is about half a mile away from where the children unfortunately penetrated the wire fence and managed to get on the railway line. Nevertheless, I shall, of course, have the additional matter to which my hon. Friend referred investigated. I think that I should say no more about the other matters, which will be the subject of an immediate investigation by the chief inspecting officer and a report will be made and published.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Opposition would like to be associated with the expression of sympathy made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES (REPORT ON ROAD HAULAGE RATES)

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.
The House will wish to know that the first Report to be issued by the National Board for Prices and Incomes is being published this afternoon and copies are available in the Vote Office. This is an interim Report on road haulage rates, a case which I referred to the Board on 6th May. The principal recommendation of the Report is that the practice of general rate recommendations by the Road Haulage Association is not in the interests of the industry or its customers and should be abandoned; and that in consequence the latest recommendation for a general 5 per cent. increase should be withdrawn, and in any case should not be accepted by the industry's customers.
The Report further recommends that it is for each haulier to judge, in the light of his own circumstances, the extent to which he can absorb increases in costs instead of passing them on to the customer. Other recommendations relate to the development of voluntary wage-negotiating machinery, to ways of achieving higher productivity and a number of other matters. I and my colleagues will be discussing the main recommendations with the Road Haulage Association tomorrow, and the other recommendations in the Report will be discussed with the Association and the trade unions by the responsible Government Departments.
This first Report by the Board is valuable and encouraging, not only for the substance of its recommendations, which are, in my judgment, fully in line with the agreed principles on which the prices and incomes policy is based, but also because it clearly illustrates two points:
First, fiat this is not a negative policy designed merely to secure restraint but is a constructive policy concerned to

foster productivity, economic growth and general prosperity.
Second, that even in a complicated issue of this sort, it is possible for a detailed investigation to be carried out in a relatively short time. Both by the quality of its first Report and by the speed with which it has been prepared, I think that the National Board for Prices and Incomes has launched itself into the public life of this country in a way which augurs well for the future.

Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State will be aware that we shall want to study the Report with care; in particular, the detailed matters which he has not described, obviously because there is not time in a statement of this kind. He has not said whether the Government endorse the Report or not, unless he means by his statement that the Report is
… fully in line with the agreed principles on which the prices and incomes policy is based …
—these principles have never yet been made very clear—that the Government do endorse it.
If the Government do endorse the Report, do they also endorse the passage stating that the industry's customers should not accept the 5 per cent. increase? If the Board recommends that it is up to the haulier to decide what his increases should be, surely it is also for the customer to decide which increases he is prepared to accept and no general rule can be laid down.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, whether recommendations are made or not, costs still increase so long as the Government force them up by taxation and inflation, with consequences for the road haulage industry? As the Government are apparently prepared to agree with the recommendations, is this not in complete contradiction of their attitude when we were dealing with the Resale Prices Act?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that road haulage is a competitive industry if only because hauliers can carry their own goods under C licences? If the Government's policy is now to support competition, why has the Geddes Report been shelved and why did the Minister of Transport state less than a fortnight ago that his policy is not one of competition in the industry?

Mr. Brown: No doubt the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) will be asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about that.
I understand that one of the difficulties in this industry—and it is one of the things which obviously has to be taken into account—is that the practice of trying to enforce a general increase right across the board reduces and does not increase competition.
As to whether the Government accept the Report, when I said that in my judgment it was fully in line with the agreed principles on which the policy is based, that is exactly what I meant, because not all of the recommendations are for the Government to put into effect. They also affect many other people. I have asked the Association, and it has agreed, to come to see me, and I thought that it would be more courteous to await that meeting before announcing our own views in too much detail.
As to the customer's view, the Report has clearly shown that if there is an attempt at this time to enforce a general increase which is not related to the curcumstances of any individual haulier, then the customer should use his power by making his own selection of haulier. If we are to bring an end to these inflationary tendencies throughout industry, one of the things which has to happen is that the power of the customer to shop around and to decide where to buy must be invoked.
On the Government's policy, the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly why the increases in taxes have to be made. One of the reasons why we are pressing ahead so hard with the prices and incomes policy is to get rid of the inflationary spiral which was such a distinguishing feature of the tenure of office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Webster: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Transport and General Workers' Union whether it will refrain from asking for an overall increase in wages?

Mr. Brown: It is not part of the prices and incomes policy to stop people from asking for overall increases in wages. As I have repeatedly pointed out to the House—and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the bad habits

of the Official Opposition—it is not part of the policy to enforce restraint of wages. What we want is any overall increase in all personal incomes to be in line with the overall rise in production and productivity in the nation.

Mr. Lubbock: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his defence of free enterprise and competition in the road haulage industry? Can he say more about the ways of increasing production and achieving higher productivity which he mentioned in the statement? Secondly, can he give the House an assurance that other Reports by the National Board for Prices and Incomes will be produced with equal expedition, particularly that concerning electricity prices?

Mr. Brown: I have said repeatedly that there is a place for both public and private enterprise and that both must be enterprising and allowed to earn their due reward, but that neither must try to impose on the customer charges which are not justified.
On the subject of the recommendations for higher productivity, it would probably be better for the Report to be read, when I shall be readily available to the House for further questions after the House has had a chance to read the recommendations and I have had a chance to discuss them with the bodies concerned. I am sure that the Board will act with equal expedition on all its other Reports. It has a full volume of work at the moment and is working very hard on it. I expect to have the next Reports within a few weeks from now.

Mr. Shepherd: As collective resale price maintenance in respect of goods is already virtually illegal under the 1956 legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the provisions of that legislation to services now that services and goods are regarded in the same light?

Mr. Brown: It does not look as though that is necessary, although I will think about it. It is obvious that we are able to deal with that matter with this machinery just as well.

Sir T. Beamish: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's touching faith in competition and more competition and consumer choice, am I completely correct in thinking that the nationalisation of


long-distance road haulage has been dropped from the Socialist programme?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be reading more into my statement than I said. What I said was that where industry purported to operate as a free enterprise industry it had better be freely enterprising.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

Relations with Europe

Mr. John Hall: I beg to give notice that on Tuesday, 13th July, I shall call attention to relations with Europe, and move a Resolution.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Marten: I beg to give notice that on Tuesday, 13th July, I shall call attention to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and move a Resolution.

Select Committee on Procedure (Reports)

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), I beg to give notice that on Tuesday, 13th July, he will call attention to the two recent Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure, and move a Resolution.

MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(PRESENTATION OF REPORTS OF COMMISSION TO PARLIAMENT.)

If a report of the Commission is, with or without omissions, presented by command of Her Majesty to either House of Parliament otherwise than at or during the time of a sitting of that House, the presentation of the report shall, for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, be treated as the laying by the Board of Trade of that report before that House.—[Mr. Jay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause has the laudable objective of speeding up the procedure under the Bill, especially in the case of reports on mergers or proposed mergers. The difficulty arises because under the original Monopolies Act, 1948, any report of the Monopolies Commission had to be laid before Parliament before it could be published, or the Board of Trade could take any action and make an order arising out of the report. However, as hon. Members know, reports cannot be laid before Parliament if Parliament is in Recess. Therefore, if a report of this kind were to be received by the Board of Trade during the Summer Recess, the Board would be debarred from publishing it or making any order arising out of it.
That has not greatly mattered hitherto, although no doubt it has caused delay, with outright monopolies with which the legislation was previously concerned. But we are now concerned also with mergers and the difficulty might cause a much more serious hold-up. For instance, if the Commision were to report in favour of permitting a merger, which had been under examination, to go forward only on certain conditions, and if the Board of Trade could not act throughout the whole of the period of the Summer Recess, no order could be made and nothing could be done and the firm or firms concerned would be left in an undesirable state of uncertainty.
It is therefore quite clear that we have to add this power to enable the procedure


to work more rapidly. I should like to reassure the House that it will not mean that the Board of Trade will be able to make orders breaking up a monopoly or merger—the last resort powers which are included in the Bill. That process requires a full affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and such approval could not be obtained when the House was not sitting. Short of the rather extreme action which we only expect to take in the last resort, this will permit the delay to be overcome and the necessary action to be taken without requiring Parliament to resume.

Mr. John Hall: We on this side of the House welcome this improvement to the Bill. Throughout the Second Reading, as the hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows, one of the points emphasised from both sides of the Committee was the need for speed in making many of these decisions, and particularly in relation to mergers. As was mentioned on many occasions during the debates during the Committee stage, delay could impose considerable hardship and damage on companies which might be proposing mergers, and we believe that the power which the Government are seeking to take by the inclusion of this Clause is an improvement and helps matters. Therefore we welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Subsection (1) of section 2 of the principal Act (which authorises references to the Commission in respect of the prevalence of conditions to which that Act applies) as extended by section 2 of this Act shall be read and have effect as if the proviso to the said subsection were omitted therefrom.—[Mr. van Straubenzee.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Clause we might discuss new Clause 3 No. 3—"Further extension of principal Act".

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think I should make it plain at the very outset, in case

the slightly obtuse legal language should mislead some Members, though I feel sure not the Treasury Bench, that there is a simple non-controversial object to this new Clause, namely, to bring within the ambit of the Monopolies and Mergers Act, as I trust it will become, the nationalised industries of the country. I am encouraged in making this argument to the House by the interesting report to which the House has just listened from the First Secretary of State, which is very germane to my argument, and to which I shall return later.
The Bill, as it has emerged from careful, detailed, and, I hope, constructive examination upstairs extending over a reasonable period of time, has significantly extended the powers of the Board of Trade in relation to monopolies and given it new powers in relation to mergers. But because of the provisions of what is defined in the Bill as the principal Act, the 1948 Act, the nationalised industries are effectively excluded from any of the existing powers and from any of the new powers which would come into being when this Bill becomes an Act. There have been in recent months significant advances in expressions of view from the Government Front Bench on the general subject of the necessity to inject a competitive spirit into the economy and an encouraging advance in the Treasury's view that this should include the nationalised industries. We recall that the First Secretary of State has acted in this particular field in relation to the Prices and Incomes Board. While I realise that I must not stray too far into that field, it is worth recording that only a few minutes ago we heard the First Secretary of State say that the conditions which he wanted to create were to add to and encourage the power of the customer "to shop around". That was his phrase, as near as I can paraphrase it, and it found a warm echo on these benches.
There are increasing numbers of people who are doubtful whether that particular aspect of economic policy will, by itself, be sufficient. There are increasing numbers of people who believe that an increasingly sharpened edge to competition is necessary both in the private and in the public sector. It is here that this Bill in general, and this new Clause and the associated new Clause in


particular, become so very important. We on this side regard it as quixotic, to put it at the least, that these gigantic enterprises are still carefully protected from the searching powers of existing legislation and the still more searching powers which this Bill will give if it comes on to the Statute Book.
3.45 p.m.
I do not want to take the time of the House, but I would like to give three short examples of the sort of situation I have in mind, which will show that it might well be to the benefit of the nation as a whole and to the Government's economic policy if these new Clauses were accepted. We all know that the mining of coal is virtually exclusively in the hands of the State. That is the present state of the law. There is throughout the country a natural movement away from coal as a form of energy and that natural movement is being unnaturally resisted by the State. The principal competitor of coal is oil. Here, I declare an interest as one who is professionally connected with one of the oil companies.
Sales of coal to industry generally in the last three years have fallen by 2½ million tons in spite of the action of the State in protecting coal to the tune of £60 million a year from the fuel oil tax. It is equally accepted that one of the reasons why coal is up against this sharp edge of competition is the oil industry, which is itself intensely competitive. I do not need to give any examples of the competition between individual oil companies operating in this country.
We on this side of the House firmly believe that the intensive competition within the oil industry is healthy and leads to efficiency. It does not need to be ruthless, and I have only to give the example of the remarkable agreements which have come out of Fawley, from the Esso Company, to illustrate how far ahead the oil industry can be, or at any rate, some parts of the industry can be, in labour relations. The quixotic position is that the oil companies operating here are potentially within the ambit of this Bill while their competitor, coal, is not. That is a situation which will be put right by the acceptance of this new Clause.
The second example is also very much in the news. We are assured by the

Prime Minister that a Bill to nationalise steel will be presented to this House in the present session, in spite of careful questioning and an opportunity to get out of that undertaking, which he did not take, last week. One assumes this assurance still stands. In parenthesis I would like to say this, and perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would care to transmit it—I noticed a certain kindly consideration for the Opposition in the Prime Minister's statement on that matter, as though he might be anxious that we should not be prepared to sit throughout August to debate a steel nationalisation Bill. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will tell the Prime Minister that we are quite prepared to do without any Summer Recess at all if necessary. There is no reticence on this side of the House to do the necessary duty on that score.
To return to the strict letter of this new Clause, the steel industry uses electricity extensively and I am told by the British Steel Founders Association that it has carried out substantial trial tests on a number of its own members which shows that over the last three years the average cost of electricity per unit consumed in that industry has increased by 24·96 per cent., whereas all other costs of their production, taken together, have risen by 4·24 per cent. When the House considers that electricity charges in this massive industry, which is under the direct threat of public ownership, account for 5 per cent. of the total cost of steel production, it will realise how vitally important a constituent factor is the price of electricity. I am told that the rise is the equivalent of £2 8s. a ton.
I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of State, in reply, will refer to the plethora of consumer councils, advisory committees, and the like, which are certainly available in the nationalised electricity undertaking. But the real difficulty about making representations is that the tariff increases vary, not only from area to area, but even from customer to customer, and this makes it extremely difficult, particularly for the small consumer, to make effective representations. If the Government had the power in Clause 3(3) in relation to the electricity industry, how much stronger would be the case of the


small consumer on price increases proposed by the natonalised electricity industry. Ministers would be very out of touch if they were to suggest later in the debate that there was not at this moment a wave of indignation at the way in which small consumers must, willy nilly, accept the price increases for electricity recently imposed on them yet again.
The third of my three short examples is transport by road. My belief is that in the private sector of road transport—and I mean by this bus services and the like—as in the nationalised sector, such as in the London passenger area, we shall have to be a deal more adventurous in introducing new methods of transport. The time will come when we shall look afresh at the licensing system, which was designed for an inter-war period in totally different conditions. The contrast which I draw is that, whereas the private firms are potentially subject to examination under the Bill the great nationalised undertakings, such as the London Transport Board, are not.
In some places transport is at crisis point. I know that my constituency is not the only constituency where country bus services are closing down because, in part, of the restrictive licensing provisions. But in London, whatever examination the State might wish to make of the problem, they are outside the terms of the Bill because they are a nationalised undertaking and are expressly excluded by the principal Act. I should have thought that for a Government, who were trying, as I think is the case at times, courageously to introduce new methods in this field, it would be positively to their advantage to have the power of this Act behind them.
Let me give one example. The First Secretary of State has been prepared, typically, to have the courage to take and defend the decision about liner trains. I should like to see that extended into such things as labour-saving buses in London. However, both are being blocked by the intense conservatism of the last residue of high priesthood conservatism which is to be found in the trade unions. It would be positively to the advantage of a modernising Government to have the potential power of the Bill behind them when it becomes an

Act to induce a sense of urgency into the modernisation of the country, which we all agree is necessary.
Finally, there is a new reason why, in spite of the fact that previous Governments may not have acted in this sense, it is more timely than ever that this power should be given. The Government have removed extensively the restrictions on nationalised industries to manufacture. I do not argue about that; I should not be in order if I did. But that is the fact. This creates a new situation of which hon. Members opposite clearly approve. But, if they approve of it, they must face the consequences of it. They are not putting monopoly, whether it be State monopoly or private monopoly, on an equal footing. Take, for example, the railway workshops and their new freedom to manufacture commercially. The only customer in this country for the type of equipment which they manufacture is itself a nationalised industry. Whereas their competitors are potentially within the ambit of the Bill, the nationalised railway workshops are not.
I want to make it plain that what I am seeking to continue is the attack on monopoly. The new Clauses are not an attack on nationalised industries; they are an attack on monopoly. I believe them to be timely and consistent. For these reasons, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I wish to say a few words on what the new Clause is not about because whenever an attempt has been made in the past to bring the nationalised industries within the orbit of the Monopolies Commission the same argument is always put forward, namely, that Parliament has willed a monopoly and that it would therefore be foolish and otiose to ask the Commission to inquire into whether there was a monopoly or not. Of course, that is so, and we do not seek to reverse that position by these new Clauses. We do not seek to give the Commission power to investigate whether there is a monopoly in the nationalised industries. That would be ridiculous.
The purpose of the new Clauses is limited. It is to inquire whether, given a monopoly, things are being done by the monopoly which are against the public interest. In other words, it is only


the second of the two tasks which the Commission may usually undertake which we seek to introduce. It will not be good enough, therefore, for the Treasury spokesman to advance the usual argument, which is that Parliament has willed a monopoly and that, in these circumstances, there is no more to be said. For that reason I hope that we shall have from the Government spokesman a reasoned explanation about what is wrong with the suggestion that we should see how these monopolies use their powers.
A great many of the nationalised industries are not monopolist in the strict sense of the word, although almost all of them, I should say, are monopolist in the sense of the word as it is used in the Bill. I cannot see why the things which a State monopolist, or near-monopolist, does should not be inquired into in the same way as private monopolists and a judgment made as to whether those things are or are not in the public interest.
Nor is it good enough to say that the Minister is a sponsoring Minister or a responsible Minister and that he has power to give directions. No doubt, as a result of the adverse report of the kind which we suggest, the Minister would give directions and that would be enough; it would not be necessary to lay the formal order as in the case of private enterprise. But I do not see what is objectionable, in principle or in machinery, in giving the Commission the limited power suggested by these new Clauses, and I therefore support them.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I do not think that there is any difference between us in desiring, apropos this Clause as in other Clauses, to promote competition and to promote the greatest efficiency of these enterprises whether public or private. The only disagreement on the new Clause is about the legislative and the administrative method and machine by which we do it.
I entirely recognise that in the new Clause the Opposition are not seeking to give power to the Commission to inquire whether there should be a monopoly when Parliament has decided that there should be one; the Opposition recognise that that would be patently absurd. What is suggested is that Parliament having set up

the monopoly, and having given it power to do certain things and having given a Government Department certain powers over it, the things that it does should be inquired into by the Monopolies Commission.
I am not satisfied that even that would be a sensible procedure, for this reason. The fact is that Parliament, when it set up these organisations, did not merely decide that there should be a monopoly or a near-monopoly, however one defines it. It also decided to lay down a whole number of safeguards. It has given to the Government Department concerned—the Ministry of Power in the case of coal, gas and electricity—power of direction over the public enterprise in a number of specified ways. It has also set up consumers' councils, which may, perhaps, have limited powers but which are, nevertheless, additional to the other safeguards. When the policies of these enterprises come to be scrutinised, there is also a Select Committee of this House which can inquire precisely into the things done and can make recommendations to the House and to the Minister about how they should be set right.
Therefore, Parliament having made all these provisions, having decided that this should be the way in which these organisations should be controlled and having set up fairly elaborate safeguards, it would not be sensible for Parliament then to ask another public authority, in the shape of the Monopolies Commission, to take a view about precisely the general practices and policies of these enterprises which were already being supervised and regulated by an existing public authority.
The difference between the two sides of the House is not in any way as to whether there should be public regulation and supervision of the policies of the public monopoly. It is simply whether it is really sensible, when Parliament has set up a system by Statute, then to ask another authority to take a view as to whether those powers are being properly exercised by Parliament and the Minister concerned. That does not seem to me to be a sensible procedure.
If we think that the powers which Parliament has given for the supervision of these organisations are inadequate, the right course would clearly be to amend the legislation setting out those powers


and to ensure that they are such as Parliament thinks they ought to be and not to say, "We think that the legislation is inadequate, so we will ask somebody else to do the job."
I remind hon. Members opposite that that is the view which has been taken by Governments in all previous Parliaments in enacting legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices. Indeed, it was the view of the White Paper issued by the previous Government of the party opposite only in March, 1964, which proposed many of the changes which we are making in the Bill but in which there is no reference to any proposal to bring the nationalised industries within the ambit of this legislation. I am, therefore, following today precisely the doctrine adopted by my predecessor 18 months ago.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who introduced the new Clause, said that there was an anomaly because the oil industry—which, I agree, is in competition with coal—would come under the jurisdiction of the Monopolies Commission whereas the coal industry would not. I should have thought that the anomaly was that at present the prices and policy of the coal industry are, within certain limits, subject to the supervision of a Minister and that the practices and prices of the oil industry are entirely free of control. The Bill will restore something more like equity in that it will make it possible, as the hon. Member said, conceivably for the oil industry to be examined by the Commission; and that will bring it into line with the coal industry, which is already subject to control by a Minister.
The hon. Member made a good point in saying that we now have the spectacle of the Prices and Incomes Board inquiring into some of the prices which are charged by public bodies such as the London Electricity Board and that this perhaps alters the argument. At first sight it may seem that it does, but when one looks into it a little more closely, it is apparent that it does not. In the first place, the Prices and Incomes Board has jurisdiction over wages and salaries as well as over prices and the powers given to Ministers by legislation setting up public enterprises have never included

any control over wages and salaries. Therefore, it could not be argued, as I have been arguing, that the powers already exist and that nothing further is required.
The real point, however, seems to me to be that the day-to-day management of a public enterprise has always been excluded from the authority of the relevant Minister. By and large, over the range of nationalised industries, Parliament has given the Minister considerable power over general policies and over the general conduct of operation of the boards of those industries. It has not, however, normally given him power over day-to-day decisions, for instance, on prices.
What the Prices and Incomes Board inquires into is not the general policy, the general constitution or the general set-up of an electricity, gas, coal or other authority. In the case of public enterprises as well as private firms, it will inquire into a particular suggested rise in prices or charges at a certain date. That would be something which is not normally within the power of the Minister. Therefore, it seems to us that there is no such overlap here as there would be if we were to bring nationalised industries within the scope of the Bill and give the Commission power to inquire into the very same issues as those on which Parliament has already given authority to the Minister.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this point a little further? He is causing doubt, at least to some hon. Members. Surely, the very fact that there has been a reference to the new Prices and Incomes Board of an increase in a nationalised industry means that Parliament has intervened in the day-to-day administration of the nationalised industry. That could hardly be anything more day-to-day than the very facts that the Board is looking into.

Mr. Jay: That is precisely my argument; I am sorry that I did not make it clear. It is just because the interventions of the Prices and Incomes Board must in practice relate to day-to-day management—that is to say, individual changes in price—and since those questions of day-to-day management are not within the jurisdiction of the Minister


that no overlap is caused by the policy of permitting the Prices and Incomes Board to intervene in such cases, even in the case of nationalised industries.
Therefore, I do not think that the intervention of the Prices and Incomes Board in these cases alters the basic argument that as regards the general practices and policies of these enterprises, Parliament has given control over them to a Minister supplemented by consumers' councils and by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and that, therefore, it would be illogical and inefficient in administration and legislation to give power to another public body to intervene. That principle still stands.
Therefore, while I entirely accept the wish of hon. Members opposite to see that there is proper supervision and control of these enterprises, as well as the possible control of the Monopolies Commission over private firms, it would be a clumsy and inefficient way of doing it to add a second public body to those which already have the necessary power.

Mr. John Hall: In order to help us to consider these new Clauses more clearly, would the right hon. Gentleman say how often the recommendations of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries have been debated in the House and how often its recommendations have been accepted by the industries concerned? He made reference to the Select Committee as being one way of dealing with the point we have in mind. It would be interesting, therefore, to see exactly how much power Parliament has over these industries, and what has resulted from its deliberations.

Mr. Jay: I did not rest my argument solely on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Nor do I regard it as an unimportant body. As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, the practice is that three days in a year should be given, normally, to debating Reports of the Select Committee, and it certainly has had a considerable influence on the policy of the Departments responsible, and, indeed, on the nationalised industries themselves. If the hon. Gentleman wants detailed chapter and verse for that I shall be very glad to give it him, but I think that he will agree with me that these Reports have been valuable and have been influential.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I must say I find the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman rather extraordinary, because surely we are at a time when the attitude towards the nationalised industries in this country is changing, and this is, indeed, reflected in the fact that we are now proposing possibly to submit the trade operations of the nationalised industries to the prices review body. I think the point when my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is trying to make is that it really is not true at the moment that the scrutiny, and the time devoted in this House is detailed examination of the policies which the nationalised industries are carrying on, is really sufficient.
What we are really suggesting, I am sure both sides of the House will agree, is that one should have a consistent attitude towards pricing problems whether they be of a nationalised industry or whether they be of a private enterprise industry, and the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has put forward this new Clause, and why we on this side of the House are supporting it, is that we believe that the expertise which the Monopolies Commission has, and the increased scope for operation which it will have as a result of its being enlarged by this Bill, means it should adopt a comparative basis, comparing the private sector and the public sector.
The example which was given of the fuel industry is important because we do have at the present time a system, in the National Coal Board, for example, where pricing policy is either a regional pricing policy or a basing-point pricing policy, not similar to the pricing policy adopted by the oil industry. Some of us would feel that in both instances these policies should be challenged, and examined by some impartial body, but we feel it would be quite wrong if the policy of the oil industry were to be examined for pricing policy while at the same time the Coal Board's policy, possibly open to the same objections, were to be excluded from reference.
What is clear is that though a Report from the Select Committee comes to this House it is most unlikely that it will have had the opportunity to examine in detail the underlying policy in pricing which the body concerned has, because


it will have looked at every industry in isolation, whereas the Commission will have a comparative basis, and be able to look at the overall policy.
We on this side feel that it is essential that where private and public industry are competing, then, if their practices are to be investigated, they should be investigated by an impartial body, and it is for this reason we are putting forward the new Clause, and it is for this reason that I hope we shall support it.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: The President of the Board of Trade perhaps did less than justice to one argument my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) put forward, and I hope that he will think again about this matter, because I do not think that there is by any means a wide gulf between the thinking on this side of the House and the right hon. Gentleman's own thinking on this point. I think that if he were to accept this new Clause he would save himself considerable future trouble and would also create an even-tempered climate of opinion in industry, particularly industry which is competing aloneside—shall I say?—some of our big public monopolies.
It has been said that the attitude is changing towards this problem. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the White Paper of a year ago saying that it made no reference to this point. I would go so far as to say that there has been a very substantial development of public opinion and thinking both as to what our attitude to monopolies should be and what we should do to encourage competition. In the last twelve months there has certainly been a change in policy. We have had a change of Government in the last twelve months and, therefore, we are now considering the situation against a different background from the expected development of policy over the last thirteen years.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the powers of the nationalised industries in trade and manufacture have been extended. I think that this is a very material point in discussing this new Clause, because I think it is quite possible

that where the producing industries are nationalised industries, and their sole customer may well be another nationalised corporation, the situation could arise where industries which are now in competition with one another in the private enterprise sector of industry could be driven out of business by the extension of the trading of nationalised corporations with one another, and that is the situation where now a nationalised corporation is able to enjoy the benefit of—I think the phrase is—shopping around. Monopolies may yet be created without Parliamentary sanction at all, and they may be created by the extension of the activities of nationalised corporations, and as the result of this extension of competition, private enterprise, and the ability of firms to compete, may be eliminated completely from our industrial field. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to reflect upon this point again.
I refer briefly to a fact which as been mentioned, that these Acts can be dealt with by amending them, as it were, one by one, if it is thought necessary, if it is thought that a change in the situation is necessary, but I do not think any of us would expect to amend them without disturbing the Parliamentary timetable. I imagine that such legislation cannot be put in hand in the Parliamentary timetable this decade, at any rate. So I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes the opportunity of putting into the Bill powers allowing public monopolies to be viewed in the same light as private industry.
To return to the point I made at the beginning, he might have encouraged the public sector of industry to be competitive. I could take a long time on this, and no one on the right hon. Gentleman's side has stronger views on the subject than I, about giving encouragement to industry to be truly competitive, but if we are to encourage industry to be truly competitive we have to give it confidence that it is operating in fair conditions. I make this almost a matter of principle and that we need to put industry in each sector on the same footing, and I see no reason why not. Why should not public industry be on the same basis as the private sector?
That is why I welcome so much the attitude of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on some of these matters. Almost drawing a bow at a


venture, I myself, when we were in Committee on the Bill, drew attention to this question of a national incomes policy.
I certainly think it is a very serious consideration in accepting this new Clause that wherever possible public enterprise and private enterprise should be subject to the same type of supervision and control. So I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will think again, because we on this side of the House as well have tried very hard to make this a lively and vigorous Bill, and if he were to accept the new Clause, not only would that be beneficial to the country, but we should feel that he accepted our attitude on this question.

Mr. Anthony Barber: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question arising out of something which he said this afternoon, bearing on the statement by the First Secretary. As I understood it, the President of the Board of Trade said that the reference of a nationalised industry to the Prices and Incomes Board was not relevant because matters such as wages and prices were matters of day to day administration and were not under the direct authority of any Minister, whereas the sort of matters into which the Monopolies Commission would be inquiring were matters over which the Minister had power. This argument holds water only if the inquiry of the Prices and Incomes Board is limited to matters over which Ministers have no direct authority. In other words, it is limited to matters of day to day administration.
From what Mr. Aubrey Jones said, I had thought that that was not so, and before we reach a decision on the new Clause it would be helpful to know whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Prices and Incomes Board will be permitted to inquire only into those matters of day-to-day administration over which Ministers have no control.

Mr. J. T. Price: In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I suppose I must accept that the new Clause has been put down in good faith, but it is somewhat remarkable to me, and I think it is worth drawing attention to it, that although it may have been put forward in good faith, and has been argued so persuasively by a number of

hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was not put forward while the Bill was being discussed in Committee upstairs. We had eleven sittings upstairs, and the Bill has been under consideration since 8th April—that is three months ago. It is therefore remarkable that such a central point of principle as this is now assumed to be, judging by the short speeches to which we have just listened, should have been delayed for so long.
I am driven to the conclusion—and I do not wish to be discourteous to anybody—that this is a sort of late spanner thrown into the works. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One has to draw rational conclusions from the evidence available. If this is so important, why was it not introduced three months ago? We discussed hundreds of Amendments in Committee upstairs, very often with great good humour, but this point, which is now regarded as so important, was not brought out. It has now been trotted out as though it has a fundamental bearing on this Measure. I do not think this is playing fair with the House.

Mr. van Straubenzee: A matter of principle of such importance as this ought to be discussed in a forum which enables all Members of the House to take part if they wish to do so.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take that view, but my experience of Standing Committees extend over many years. I have served on various Committees, discussing a variety of subjects, and it is my experience that important matters are usually introduced at an early stage of the Bill, and all this temerity about everybody having a chance to take part in the discussion does not sound convincing when we hear arguments against the Finance Bill being taken on the Floor of the House. One often hears it said that that Bill should go to a Committee upstairs.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Only by hon. Members on that side of the House.

Mr. Price: I do not want to make much of the point, because I do not wish to waste time. Nevertheless, it is valid to point out that if this is such an important point of principle we ought to have heard about it some time ago.
I am sorry that I was not present at the beginning of this discussion. When


I came in a little while ago, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who has shown great diligence during the discussions on the Bill, was on his feet, and I believe that I heard him make some reference to the nationalised industries, and particularly to railway workshops. I did not, unfortunately, get the complete drift of his argument, but perhaps I might point out that the railway workshops, which are part of a great nationalised industry, have been supported by this house in all its manifestations.
They have been supported by the Labour Government and by a succession of Conservative Governments, but they have aways been restricted in their competition with private industry. I have had quite a few differences of opinion with my right hon. Friends on this matter. I want to restore freedom to the nationalised industries. I want to give them freedom to compete on equal terms with private enterprise. They are unable to do this at present, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will take particular note of what I am saying. I want to restore complete freedom to the railway workshops, which are part of a nationalised industry.
I know that there are bound to be differences between the two sides of the House, because this is what politics is about, but perhaps I might point out that the hon. and learned Member for Dar-wen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who has been so eloquent on this issue, did not have these inhibitions in a previous incarnation, when he was a Member of my party before he joined the party opposite.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Oh, yes, he did.

Mr. Price: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be reminded of that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read my 1945 election address. If he has, he will find there something similar to what I have said here.

Mr. Price: That will not do. I am a little bit too long in the tooth to accept that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had these doubts in 1945, he would never

have been endorsed as a Labour candidate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I think that we have pursued the previous political history of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for long enough. We must get back to the debate on the new Clause.

Mr. Price: Obviously I am a little out of order in being deflected from my purpose and drawing attention to other matters by the reply which I received from the benches opposite, though I might have been a little provocative.
Having reached this stage of the Bill, we are to a large extent agreed about its general objectives. I think that there is a large measure of agreement between the two sides on the principle of the Bill, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not, for purely technical purposes, or for publicity in the Press, which is obviously a factor in these matters, seek to obstruct the main purpose of the Bill by introducing red herrings at this late stage.

Mr. Jay: With the leave of the House, may I say that I take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has said, though I shall not pursue the argument back to anybody's election address in 1945.
I assume that the new Clause has been put down in good faith, even though I cannot claim to have attended all the meetings of the Committee. I also agree that there is no great gulf between us. All that we are discussing is whether, in addition to a number of admitted safeguards which the nationalised industries have imposed on them, we should add this extra one.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), may I say that as far as the Prices and Incomes Board goes the situation as I understand it is that it is legally possible for the Government to refer a great range of projects to it, but it is for the decision of the Government, and it will normally not be the policy of the Government to refer to that Board issues which, clearly, come under the control of any individual Minister.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) said that if I wished to amend in various ways, the Statute setting up the nationalised industries, since that might take a number of years, it would be more expeditious to do it in this Bill. I did not say that I wished to introduce any such Amendments, or that they were necessary. I merely said that if one believes that, which, by and large I do not, that would be a more orderly way of doing it than introducing it in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was a little unfair to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. He suggested that it did not really go very thoroughly, or at any rate deeply, into the policies and conduct of these industries, and that it would not be able to take into account, for instance, the competition that there might be between some fuel which was under national control and ownership, and some other fuel such as oil which was not, and therefore he thought that it should be referred to the Commission. But this is not true. It is within the competence and normal practice of the Select Committee to carry out very thorough investigations and to do it, if it wishes, annually and not just once-for-all as would happen in the case of the Monopolies Commission. I therefore do not think that that argument has any great force.
4.30 p.m.
The situation is that we have very little supervision in these matters over private monopolies or semi-monopolies. We are suggesting that further powers should be taken in the Bill. On the other hand, we already have a great number of often very onerous safeguards on the conduct of the nationalised industries. I therefore do not think it reasonable to add to the nationalised industries further safeguards and further limitations on top of those which already exist just because we are introducing some safeguards in the case of private industry. If it were argued that the nationalised industries ought to be referred to the Monopolies Commission, it might as well be argued that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries should in future inquire into private industry. Nobody seems to have argued that. It therefore seems to me more sensible to leave the position as the

Bill proposes and as the White Paper of the Conservative Party proposed only a year ago. This would ensure a due measure of supervision and control over both the private and the public sector.

Mr. Higgins: But the point which I made was somewhat different. I agree that no one has suggested that the Select Committee on Estimates should investigate the private sector. Nevertheless there is some case for uniformity of approach. The criteria which the Select Committee might adopt to see whether an industry was working in the best interests of the country might be somewhat different from that which the Monopolies Commission would use. For example—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may intervene briefly, but he has exhausted his right to speak in the debate.

Mr. Higgins: I was merely seeking to give an example in which consumers at a distance from the source of supply are subsidised at the expense of those who are near to it. This could be investigated on a uniform basis between private and public industry.

Sir William Robson Brown: The President of the Board of Trade made a strong reference to safeguards. This House is the sacred spot for safeguarding the public and private interest.
I enter into the debate only because of the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), in which he referred to the railway workshops. He not only said that the existing railway workshops should be competitive but implied that they could well be extended. I am worried by the fact that we could find ourselves in a position not only of creating a monopoly but of creating the worst kind of monopoly conceivable—the crushing out of existence of all competition for ever.
I will explain briefly and quickly what I have in mind. At present the railways industry puts out inquiries for certain machinery to be supplied by private enterprise. It will be in a position also to manufacture within its own workshops. The industry could put out the inquiries, establish all the competitive prices, place no orders whatever outside and then arrange the prices and costs within its


own organisation in order to say, "We are the cheapest and therefore we need not buy outside". The net result could be that over a period outside firms could conscientiously and sincerely compete, quote and reduce quotations and still be frozen out—and in the end be wiped out.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member is making a point of theory. In practice this does not happen at all. The railway workshops have to secure work for their own machinery and workers in competition with private industry. One of the great railway workshops in my constituency in Lancashire recently lost a major contract because a private firm undercut its estimate for the job. I am asking only for equality to be restored. They should have freedom to compete for work in private industry as well as entering into railways manufacturing and obtaining contracts for their own nationalised workshops. That is all I am asking.

Sir W. Robson Brown: I was interested in the intervention, but it does not relieve my anxieties one bit. The hon. Member merely goes one stage further; he says that not only should they have all their own work, but they ought to compete in the outside world, too. This goes from bad to worse.
I made this intervention because I wanted to hear what the President of the Board of Trade said about this matter and what is his view on what I have described as the most serious of all monopolies—perpetual monopoly by the crushing out of all private competition.

Mr. Peter Emery: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on moving the new Clause without any party rancour and on setting the trend for the short debate which we have had about the nationalised industries and the Monopolies Commission.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) went further than we normally expect him to go. There can be little doubt, surely, that we are moving the new Clause in good faith. In view of the fact that the debate has taken only 45 minutes and in view of the manner in which it has been conducted, it is a little unfair to suggest that there are ulterior motives behind our decision

to move the new Clause. This subject was mentioned on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in Committee on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. It may be that the Opposition found that we had passed in Committee the right stage for moving such a provision and that the better place for moving it was earlier in the Bill. It was felt that rather than find artificial means of bringing it into the Committee stage it was better to move the new Clause in its proper place on Report.

Mr. J. T. Price: It would not be the case, would it, that hon. Members opposite have received a special brief from the Conservative Central Office drawing attention to the fact that, in their view, they had omitted something important?

Mr. Emery: There has been no brief from the Conservative Party on any aspect of the Bill since Second Reading. All the work has been done by Members of the Committee. At any time I should have been delighted to have a brief. All that will be said today will be without any help from the research departments of any political party, as I believe is also the case for Government back-bench Members.
May I turn to the wider aspects? An argument which I am afraid we shall hear many times on Report, and which has been advanced by the President of the Board of Trade, needs to be dealt with immediately—the argument that this provision is not necessary because it was not in the Conservative White Paper issued about 15 months ago. Hon. Members should understand clearly that the Bill goes much further than the Conservative Government's White Paper. We say that it would have been quite reasonable to have taken the steps set out in the White Paper. But if the Government, of their own decision, have decided to go further and to take in services to a much larger extent, and to be all-embracing in the legislation, we say that the Bill ought to be all-embracing and ought to take in all sections of the community. Consequently, no aspect of industry should be left out. That is why we have moved the new Clause.
May I follow up different points that have been made by my hon. Friend the


Member for Wokingham. He was concerned with the aspect that nationalised industries have to deal in competition with the rest of the private sector. It is quite clear today that the nationalised sector of industry is widening its interests. We on this side of the House do not condemn that. Indeed, we believed it would come. But, if it is to happen, we say quite categorically that we believe the nationalised industries should have to face up to the same regulations and rigours that are set private industry. Indeed, it is for that purpose that this Clause is being moved.
As an illustration, may I cite the position of the Coal Board which is now, sometimes in partnership with private industries in joint firms, sometimes by taking over further private enterprise industries, strengthening its own operations in the coal and the coal by-products field. Coal by-products today is a vast sector of industry, very nearly embraced in the chemical industry. In the same way, I do not know how many people realise that the National Coal Board is in a consortium looking for oil in the North Sea. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Jolly good luck to it."] I have some small interest in oil, but this has nothing to do with the point that it is quite reasonable that the National Coal Board should be attempting to safeguard some of its interests by acting in this manner. But, if it is to do so, surely it must have the same hurdles to overcome in its pricing policy or in its day-to-day operation and its monopolistic practices as private industry has.
I am very surprised to find that the President of the Board of Trade takes the line that he has done from the Dispatch Box, because I would like to refer him to a speech on the Second Reading of the Monopolies Bill, 1948, when the present Prime Minister said:
But public monopolies are by no means excluded from the operations of the Bill. If one of them were to engage in activities not directly provided for with prescribed safeguards under the statute—if, for instance, the National Coal Board were to make mining machinery—and if the other conditions of the Act were not fulfilled, it would be possible to have such activities brought before the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 2032.]
This seems an immensely reasonable quotation.
In this instance we believe the present Prime Minister was right. Indeed, we believe that there is every reason, because of what he said, why the Government should in fact accept the Clause. It seems to us that the President of the Board of Trade, unless he wishes to have a wigging in Cabinet tomorrow, ought to consider most fully the opinions expressed by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because here the Prime Minister is stating very nearly, though not exactly, the case we are propounding from this side of the House.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Why, if hon. Members opposite think that what the Prime Minister said in 1948 was right, did they not say so a year ago when they drafted the White Paper which I quoted?

Mr. Emery: I hoped I had dealt with this point. I hope we do not have to return to it time and time again in this debate. Let us get it quite clear so that we need not have it said again that something is different from the White Paper produced by the Conservative Party.
The present Government have decided to go very much wider than that White Paper and, because they are going very much wider, we on this side believe it should be all-embracing. I hope that we will not come back to this really fallacious argument on later Amendments, because no doubt other opportunities for using the argument will arise.
Let us consider also the competition the nationalised industries are setting up to the private sector. With the new feedstock the gas industry is likely to enter into competition with bottled gas and l.p.g. in serving new fields of demand of the consumer. It would be quite wrong if it were able to carry on this business in a manner which would be deprecated by the Monopolies Commission or which would go against the general operation of the Bill. Therefore, we come back to this view outlined by the Prime Minister, that where nationalised industries are merging into competition with the private sector, then nationalised industries must follow the same rules.
We can see only too well that nationalised industries are not holier than thou. It would be quite wrong to debate now the recent decision of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court in relation to a


nationalised firm breaking its undertakings. If that can happen in private industry, here is proof again that it can happen in the nationalised industries. It is because we know these sorts of things can go on that we believe that safeguards such as those in the new Clause should be written into the Bill.
I do not want to debate for long the very concise points put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) on the railway workshops. We realise now that the railway workshops are in a position to compete with private industry, and it would be quite wrong for anyone to suggest that was not the case.
The other point which I think is of importance is that made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Although the Government might refer to the Prices and Incomes Board other matters outside the particular functions of prices and incomes, I do not think anyone in the House would suggest it would be good, proper or reasonable practice for aspects which should be properly considered on monopolies to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, and I hope very much that that would not be the view of the Government.
I now want to turn to the position of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, because the President of the Board of Trade referred to the safeguards that arise to the consumer and to the House from the operation of that Committee. I take that point, but I have here a few of the reports that have been made on the nationalised industries. There was a report on coal in 1958, on electricity in 1963 and on the gas industry in 1961. Indeed, I see in the report of the Committee on the gas industry in 1961 that even then there were references to the need for cheaper gas to be supplied to the consumer.
Is it argued that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is able to report on these industries frequently enough? There was a report on the electricity supply industry in 1963. Is it unreasonable of me to suggest that there is little likelihood of the Select Committee returning to the electricity supply

industry for a considerable time? I am not saying that one can rule the possibility out. The Committee has the power to return to that industry tomorrow, but in practice there is little chance of it happening. Therefore, if some time this year or next year a major monopolistic activity was undertaken by the electricity supply industry, it would stand a good chance of running another four or five years before the Select Committee returned to consider its operations.
What I do not understand from the arguments advanced from the Government Front Bench is why this power should not be provided. The Government need not use it. Not one argument has been advanced to show why it would hurt the Government to have this power. Normally hon. Members on this side try to limit the power of the Board of Trade, but on this occasion we believe that this is a specific power which should be in the command of any President of the Board of Trade to deal with the possibility of monopolistic practices operating in the nationalised industries.
It is no use suggesting that all the consumer councils and such bodies throughout the country would be able to deal with some of these monopolistic practices if a specific gas board or electricity authority decided to continue such a form of business activity. If there are not reductions in the price of town gas as new feedstocks come along, it may well be that in years to come the price of gas will have to be referred. This is the sort of thing where there is a monopolistic practice and where we on this side believe that the Government should have powers to act.
No genuine argument has been advanced to show why the power should not be there. It has merely been suggested that enough power exists already. That does not accord with the true facts. I believe that in view of the monopoly position of the nationalised industries it would be greatly in the country's interest that this power should exist as these industries extend their trading activities. Nationalised industries should not be treated as a favourite son who does not have to live up to the standards set for the rest of the industry practising in the private sector. If the Government cannot see fit to accept the Amendment, or,


indeed, to give some undertaking that they will reconsider the point and deal with it in another place, I shall have to urge my colleagues to divide the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 180.

Division No. 210.]
AYES
[4.54 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mitchell, David


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
More, Jasper


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Berkeley, Humphry
Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bessell, Peter
Grant, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biffen, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Peel, John


Bingham, R. M.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Percival, Ian


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Dame Edith


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Robson Brown, Sir William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Higgins, Terence L.
Shepherd, William


Buxton, Ronald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Channon, H. P. G.
Hooson, H. E.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Hopkins, Alan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hordern, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kilfedder, James A.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crawley, Aidan
Kirk, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lagden, Godfrey
Walder, David (High Peak)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Dance, James
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Walters, Dennis


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ward, Dame Irene


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul
Loveys, Walter H.
Webster, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lubbock, Eric
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Whitelaw, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wise, A. R.


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick



Emery, Peter
Maitland, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Errington, Sir Eric
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Mr. Francis Pym and


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson-Smith.


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus





NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Alldritt, Walter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, Hugh


Allen Scholefield (Crewe)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dell, Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dodds, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chapman, Donald
Donnelly, Desmond


Beaney, Alan
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Driberg, Tom


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Dunn, James A.


Blackburn, F.
Crawshaw, Richard
Dunnett, Jack


Boston, T. C.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
English, Michael


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Dalyell, Tam
Ennals, David


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Darling, George
Ensor, David


Bradley, Tom
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)




Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lawson, George
Redhead, Edward


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Floud, Bernard
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rose, Paul B.


Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rowland, Christopher


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Gourlay, Harry
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Gregory, Arnold
McCann, J.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Grey, Charles
MacColl, James
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McLeavy, Frank
Small, William


Hannan, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Snow, Julian


Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Manuel, Archie
Stones, William


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Marsh, Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Maxwell, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Holman, Percy
Mayhew, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen


Horner, John
Mellish, Robert
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Molloy, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Howie, W.
Murray, Albert
Tomney, Frank


Hoy, James
Newens, Stan
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Oakes, Gordon
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
O'Malley, Brian
Wallace, George


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Weitzman, David


Jackson, Colin
Orbach, Maurice
White, Mrs. Eirene


Janner, Sir Barnett
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


day, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'h'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Zilliacus, K.


Kenyon, Clifford
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Joseph Slater and




Mrs. Harriet Slater.

Clause 1.—(PROVISIONS FOR ENLARGING COMMISSION AND OTHERWISE EXPEDITING ITS WORK.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "Monopolies Commission" and insert "Commission for Competition" with which it is proposed that we take Amendment No. 2, in line 16, leave out "preserve" and insert "substitute for".
Amendment No. 3, in line 16, at end insert:
the name 'the Commission for Competition'".
Amendment No. 74, in Schedule 1, page 20, line 3, leave out "Monopolies Commission" and insert "Commission for Competition", and Amendment No. 75, in line 7, leave out "Monopolies Commission" and insert "Commission for Competition".
Mr. John Hall. Mr. van Straubenzee.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I have permission to move the Amendment, Dr. King?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I see from the Order Paper that the hon. Member's name is not down to the Amendment, but I understand that he has the right to move it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, to leave out "Monopolies Commission" and to insert "Commission for Competition".
I thought for a moment that I would not be able to perform this important task. This task is the old and well-known one of trying to substitute, as these Amendments do, a proper and accurate name, which is not offensive, for the present name of the Monopolies Commission. We seek to substitute the title "Commission for Competition".
The Monopolies Commission was always an inaccurate title and it becomes more inaccurate as the years go by and greater powers are added to it. In 1948 the present Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade, appealed to Members of the House to help him choose a better title, "a more accurate and still reasonably sounding title". Ever since then people have sought to do this, and we think that we have now succeeded. When I say "we" I must pay tribute, in his absence, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) who has some copyright to this title which, among a lot of front runners, was eventually selected for fulfilling the qualifications suggested by the present Prime Minister as being "accurate and still reasonably sounding".
It is well known that according to the terms of the 1948 Statute, one has a monopoly in the sale of goods or the provision of services or the processing of goods and so on if one has as little as 33 per cent. of the market. So we get a state of affairs in which there are three monopolies in the one field. This was always ridiculous and offensive, because to call someone a monopolist still has a disparaging connotation. I am not sure that the Minister without Portfolio agrees with that. At other stages of the Bill he suggested that it is no longer offensive to call someone a monopolist although it might have been in 1948. He certainly thought it was in the 1948 debates on this matter.
I suggest that it is still offensive, and that to call someone in particular a monopoly capitalist is still included in the catalogue of Marxist abuse, and so long as it is there it seems to me that it should not be allowed to be used in the official documents and titles of bodies if it can be avoided. We think it can be avoided.
I think the matter has got worse rather than better because of the new powers of this Commission, which is often not dealing with monopolies in any sense of the word at all. First, there is the suggestion in the Bill, in spite of our objections, that the Commission should consider mergers where there may be as little as 5 per cent. of the market or even less involved. When one considers the £5 million assets limit

in later Clauses of the Bill, it should be remembered that in many heavy capitalised industries, such as the chemical industry and others, £5 million is a relatively small sum of money. Therefore—I am not arguing the merits—one may have circumstances in which this Commission is dealing with proposed mergers which involve perhaps only 5 per cent. or even less of any particular industry.
We also have in the Bill the newspaper provisions where the relevant limit now is a circulation of 500,000. That again may introduce within the orbit of the Commission matters which are far less than 33⅓ per cent. of the market, however one may define the market.
Above all, with the new power over services it is difficult to see how monopoly comes into the matter. The Commission, for example, may be dealing with the question of solicitors' fees or the terms of admission to estate agents' or other professions. It may be investigating the terms of entry where it is alleged that there is undue restriction on entry into certain professions. That may be a proper thing to inquire into, but to suggest that the Commission would be inquiring into a monopoly is an abuse of language which we should no longer tolerate. Indeed, as the Minister of State said in Committee, the word "monopoly" implies scale monopoly, and these things have nothing to do with scale monopoly.
We proposed originally five or six different titles, to all of which there were objections. Finally, the matter crystallised into this title, "Commission for Competition". I paid tribute in his absence to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. Now that he is present I might pay him a tribute again and at the same time give a consolation prize to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who for many days was not at all inclined to jettison his suggestion.
Eventually we agreed that this is the best and most accurate title that one can obtain. It is not completely accurate because, as I think the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Floud) pointed out at one time, there might be situations, though I think that they are getting fewer, in which the Commission comes to the conclusion that it cannot promote competition. It might conclude that the structure of the industry or service is such


that it must accept a monopoly position and all it can do is to try to regulate the monopoly either by its prices or something else.
These would be a decreasing minority of cases, because in the Bill the Government, quite rightly, are taking powers of divesting by which for the first time it will be possible to break up a monopoly forcibly, as the Americans have done for many years, by a divesting decree. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member for Acton that the functions of the Commission could not be properly described as a "Commission for Competition," because in some cases it could not promote competition and would have to accept monopoly by regulating it, becomes very minimal now that the Commission has this divesting power.
5.15 p.m.
Compared with the inaccuracy of the present name the inaccuracy of the suggested name is so small as to be practically inconspicuous. The inaccuracy of the present name stands out like a sore thumb, firstly because of the mergers, secondly because of the newspapers, thirdly because of the services, and fourthly because it was never accurate in the first place. I do not want to go into terms in economics like monopsolist, oligopolist and others which are employed to describe more accurately the idea of the particular state of a particular market. No one would wish to choose a name of that sort. We must have a name which is both memorable and easily comes off the tongue. "Commission for Competition" is not only both memorable and comes off the tongue easily, but it describes the purpose of all our work in this Bill, as indeed our work in 1948 and 1956 and in all the other land marks of this field of legislation, which has been and is to promote competition.
It is good that we should mark and name it by the symbol and title of the Commission which will do the work. It is true that perhaps more than one body also does this work. The Restrictive Trade Practices Court does it. It may be that the National Board for Prices and Incomes is seeking to do it, and it may be that the Select Committee which we heard of earlier in the debate is also seeking to do it, but the prime function will rest on this Commission for a long time

to come. I should like to see this made known by the change in the name.
The new name will not only reduce the offensive nature of the inquiry and make those who are investigated feel less as if they were the accused in the dock and feel less of a public enemy, but it will give everyone concerned with the Commission the idea that the House is determined to produce the maximum competition in the various fields dealt with by the Commission.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I should like to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. C. Fletcher-Cooke) for his kind and undeserved remarks about the origin of this suggestion for the renaming of the Commission. I agree with him that opinion on both sides of the Standing Committee which discussed the group of Amendments containing various suggestions for a change of name eventually crystallised round this suggestion. I would regard that as a strong reason why we should give the suggestion very close thought and, indeed, accept it as a right name. It attracted the support of the Committee because of its merits and not because of the eloquence of its proposer.
My hon. and learned Friend has made the negative point that the use of the word "Monopolies" in the present title of the Monopolies Commission is quite wrong. The President of the Board of Trade, who no doubt will be replying may attempt to defend the continuation of the title "Monopolies Commission". The right hon. Gentleman, if he will permit me to say so, has never struck me as being the man to whom the description "Humpty Dumpty" could be appropriately applied. Indeed, anyone less like Humpty Dumpty it would be difficult to imagine, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that it was Humpty Dumpty who produced those memorable words, "I make words mean what I want them to mean. The only question is who is to be the master, me or the words."
This is what is happening with the Commission becausce it has powers to investigate conditions to which by no possible stretch of imagination could the word "monopoly" be applied. This


has a number of most unfortunate results, perhaps the most serious being the extent to which those affected by the decisions of the Commission resent the suggestion that they are a monopoly or anything approaching a monopoly. The whole investigation gets off on the wrong foot and, occasionally, bad blood is created. People start with the assumption that they are being investigated because tley are a monopoly although they know that, in fact, they often face fierce competition, and they view with scorn and derision an investigation which appears to set out on the assumption that they are a monopoly.
It is of the utmost importance that industry and commerce, and now the professions, should become reconciled to monopoly legislation being a perpetual part of our economic system, and this requires that we get away from the name "monopoly". It is so important that these people should approve our monopolies legislation—I use the word generally, without commending it—and should co-operate wholeheartedly with it that a change from the title "Monopolies Commission" is essential.
The only question is, a change to what? What name can be suggested instead? If one looks for a word to express the underlying economic premise of the whole of this legislation, that word is "competition". It is competition which the legislation is intended to promote and which the Board of Trade, in the vast majority of cases, seeks to enforce. The word "competition" has the supreme merit of having all sorts of good connotations, recognised as good on both sides of the House. There was a time when "competition" was a dirty word on that side of the House, but I am happy to acknowledge that this is no longer so. Hon. Members on both sides never tire of paying tribute to the importance of competition as a means of galvanising our economy into a more virile and competitive state. I chose the word "galvanising" deliberately. I believe that no single act in the past few years is likely to have more effect in promoting competition than the decision of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court in the galvanised tanks case. I should stray out of order if I elaborated on that now, but the purpose is the same, to promote competition and by competition to

promote efficiency and ensure the public interest, to ensure that consumers, who are, after all, the ultimate beneficiaries of production, are looked after.
The importing of the word "competition" into the title of the Commission would thus serve a double purpose. First, the concept of competition is attractive to business men and it is something to which they must always pay heed. They live in a competitive situation. They know that their right to run their businesses and make profits is justifiable only in a situation of competition. They are prepared always to face fair competition and they regard it as the substratum of their operations. Second, competition is what we in the House, and what the Government as the overlords of the economy, must always attempt to promote in order to make our whole economy more efficient.
For these two central reasons, this suggestion has a great deal to commend it, and they are fortified by the powerful arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend about the widening scope of the activities of the Commission under the Bill and the others matters which he so cogently advanced. I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. Our proposal has considerable merit. If Parliament accepted this change of name, it would do a great deal to attract attention to the purpose of our legislation and to show that the Government and all parties in the House are determined that industry should become more competitive and determined that those who provide services of one sort or another should compete fairly and toughly for the consumers' custom. In addition, it would act as a genuine spur to efficiency and to an altogether more virile and healthy economy throughout the country.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As a newcomer, I find this exercise in semantics so fascinating that I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will think it right to draw attention to the true nature of the proposition which we are asked to accept, namely, that competition is good and monopoly is bad. This proposition is put forward in the context of this debate, but hon. Members opposite do not always take that view. On occasion, they take the view, as we certainly do on occasion, that an industry


can develop to a point where monopoly is inevitable, but the difference between us is that we say that, when that situation has been reached, the monopoly must be a public monopoly. After a few years, even hon. Members opposite come round to accepting the same view, but it takes them a little time.
Therefore, we do not really take the point that in all circumstances competition is good and in all circumstances monopoly is bad. There is no other point made here as this is purely an exercise in semantics. On other occasions, hon. Members opposite refer to competition as being bad. They sometimes talk about "cut-throat" competition as competition taken to a degree to which it ought not to go. Therefore, they cannot be saying that competition is always good. Clearly, there are circumstances in which competition is bad, in spite of the proposition now put before us that it is an ideal to which we ought always to aim. This is only a question of words. It is rather like calling a rat-catcher a rodent operative. It comes into a similar category of thinking.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the thought that not wanting to call things what they are is a tendency not confined to our own country. For example, some years ago, when the Soviet Union was thinking of adopting some of the ideas which obtain in our part of the world, it did not like the word "competition" and so the expression "socialist emulation" was invented. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, if he is thinking of accepting the proposal put to him, will accept it to the extent of calling the Commission not the "Commission for Competition" but the "Commission for Socialist Emulation".

Sir Douglas Glover: That idea would not be so bad if there were any real socialist emulation. No doubt, if I were to discuss the concept of socialist emulation any further, I should be out of order on this Amendment. I can only say that I have never found anything in the Socialist Government's policies which stimulated progress by emulation. They have led only to a period of stagnation. However, I am glad that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) made his speech because

it showed that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) was not quite right when he said that competition was accepted on both sides of the House. In fact, the party opposite pays lip-service to competition but it does not really believe in it. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite would much prefer a cosy monopoly—admittedly, preferably a public monopoly, but they would even prefer a private monopoly because they could then make a case for making it a public monopoly. They do not really believe in competition and, therefore, they do not really accept what we are trying to do by the Amendment.
There is nothing wrong in a monopoly. It may be to the advantage of the shareholders and it may be to the advantage of the people who work in it, although, of course, it is certainly to the disadvantage, in nearly every case, of the consuming public at large. There is no reason why people in an organisation should not desire to have a monopoly. It may be slightly socially undesirable, but there is nothing criminal in the "bosses" and the workers in a particular industry wanting the minimum of competition. But we had thought—we have been quickly proved wrong—that the present Government, when returned to power would set about modernising Britain. If there was anything in the cry that they put out at the election, this debate should not be necessary. The President of the Board of Trade ought to say, "I do not know who is responsible for devising this form of words, but it is such an improvement, calculated to create the climate of opinion which we are trying to create, that we shall accept these Amendments without debate".
5.30 p.m.
It is telling all organisations, including the professions, and nearly all our activities in the modern world, that the Government are taking power to inquire into their affairs to make certain that they are as competitive as they can be within our social order for the benefit of the consuming public. In other words, the emphasis in the Bill is designed to bring a greater element of competition into all our affairs. Surely it would be far clearer to the general public if they knew that we were dealing with a Bill the object


of which was to introduce more competition into our society. If we are doing that—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is basically what the Bill is about—would it not be a very good thing to say that the Bill is to encourage competition?
I do not think that either side of the House can wrap themselves up in a white sheet. The Molony Commission was set up in 1948, and we called it the same name in 1956. There is no party point about this, but there is an enormous psychological effect. If we called this a "Commission for Competition" even the firms being investigated would know that they were being investigated not because they might be doing something which was anti-social, but to make sure that what they were doing was in the best interests of the nation and being done with the broadest degree of competition. They would know that any merger would not reduce the competitive element but would, if anything, increase the amount of real competition, because one can have as much competition between two big highly efficient firms as one can between 100 small inefficient firms. As long as competition is there, one can have a very high degree of it.
I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the Amendment, and I hope that even at this late stage the President of the Board of Trade will warmly congratulate whoever on this side thought of the words and accept the Amendment with acclamation on behalf of the Government. It may be another case of the present Government learning from their own mistakes and benefiting from the wisdom of the Opposition. This has now become so usual that the Government should not be chary about accepting our wisdom and these improvements. With certain Clauses of the Finance Bill, they got into the habit of accepting certain improvements from us, and there is no reason why this should be confined to one department. Why should it not spread over the broad field of our affairs so that our wisdom will help the Government to improve their Bills? This is all good democratic procedure.
The object of the Amendment is to make absolutely clear what the House intends to do in passing the Bill, which is to increase the amount of competition between efficient firms in our economy.

That being the object of the Bill, why should the Government not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Jay: I am not quite clear what semantics are but this is certainly an argument about words. All of us agree that "Monopolies Commission" is not a perfect name, and we should like to find a better one if we could. Indeed, we undertook during the Committee stage that we would adopt a different name if it was reasonably accurate, reasonably short and not too much of a mouthful, and would not give rise to misunderstanding.
But I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not convinced me that the suggestion which they make—I am sure that they have tried very hard, as we have—of "Commission for Competition" is on all those grounds preferable to the title that we have already. We start from the position that "Monopolies Commission" is a title which is fairly well known and accepted. People know what they mean by it. Therefore, unless there is a clearly better alternative we are not justified in making a change. I am not altogether persuaded that "Commission for Competition" is a very short or euphonious title. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) quoted Humpty Dumpty. Humpty Dumpty went on "impenetrability—that is what I say." I think that "Commission for Competition" is not very much less of a mouthful than "impenetrability".
The name "Commission, for Competition" also suffers from the defect that it implies that this is the only body whose job it is to encourage competition. That is not true. That is also the job of the Restrictive Practices Court, which is just as important a body to encourage competition. Clearly, one of the purposes of the name that we give to the Commission is to distinguish it from the Restrictive Practices Court. Therefore, at present if we describe one as the Restrictive Practices Court and we know that it has jurisdiction over restrictive agreements or arrangements, and we describe the other as the Monopolies Commission, which has jurisdiction, in effect, over large units which dominate a considerable part of our own market, I think that as a matter of language it is reasonably clear what we mean. If, on the other hand, we call this


the "Commission for Competition", then there is duplication and uncertainty as between the Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court.
I do not agree that there is something offensive or depreciating about the word "monopoly". I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that all monopolies are neither good nor bad. It is not true to say that all monopolies are good or that all monopolies are bad. It is, indeed, not true to say that competition is always good or always bad. It would be absurd exaggeration to suggest that the word "monopoly" carries a stigma. After all, this House, under a Conservative Government, set up the Atomic Energy Authority. That is a monopoly, but there is nothing derogatory or offensive in saying that it is one. So is the Post Office. Nobody would regard that fact in itself as justifying criticism. The fact that we have a number of public monopolies set up by Statute shows that a monopoly as such is not something that we condemn.
I agree that "Monopolies Commission" is not a perfect title in the sense that no doubt the Commission will concern itself with issues other than strict monopoly. However, we do not condemn names in other respects because they do not cover everything which they are intended to cover. I suppose the word "Parliament" might be said to be misleading in this sense. This is not purely a place where we talk. It is a place where we talk but also a place where we legislate and take decisions. One might argue for that reason that it was highly misleading to call it "Parliament". I must confess that, in spite of that imperfection, "Parliament" is a word which is good enough for me. I think that when one looks at the alternative the same argument applies to the admittedly imperfect title "Monopolies Commission". Therefore, while we do not claim that we have found the ideal answer to the question, we are not persuaded that anybody has yet found a better alternative.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there must be a major difference between a word which has lasted 700 years and one which has only lasted 17 years?

Mr. Jay: Certainly a difference, but not enough to establish the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The House will agree that the President of the Board of Trade's answer is very disappointing to those who proposed this extremely well argued Amendment. Whatever may be the view of the term "Commission for Competition", one thing that has emerged is that no one, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), has a good word to say for the term "Monopolies Commission". I think that everyone agrees that that term in connection with this Bill is ludicrous. Indeed, it was ludicrous when used in the 1948 Act, Section 3 of which said:
Conditions to which this Act applies shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to prevail if … at least one-third of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom or any substantial part thereof are supplied by or to any one person …".
Then the question deals with other matters. Therefore, under that Act and as perpetuated by this Bill, one could have in the same industry three monopolies. Nothing could be more ludicrous than the term "Monopolies Commission" in those circumstances. No one could argue that, where one-third of the goods of a certain description were concerned, this was a monopoly.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) would propose an alternative. In Committee he suggested "Oligopolistic Commission". He pronounced that word in Committee with more success than I in getting my tongue around it.

Mr. Higgins: I suggested no such thing. I suggested "market domination and mergers".

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right in saying that, in the end, he moved an Amendment referring to "market domination", but at one stage he was arguing for an "Oligopolistic Commission" and later for monopsomy—a term with which we are all familiar. He reminded me of Burke saying:
… the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.


We must also consider what "monopoly" means. The hon. Member for Putney is not strictly accurate in saying that this is merely a question of semantics. We are dealing with a situation in a new Bill and with an inaccurate description which goes against all common sense in the Bill. There are two relevant definitions of "monopoly" in the shorter Oxford Dictionary. The first is:
Exclusive possession of the trade in some commodity,".
In general, that is not the case under this Bill. The second definition is:
The exclusive privilege conferred by the sovereign or the State of selling some commodity or trading with a particular place or country".
While my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Van Straubenzee) was speaking earlier, I reflected that, if his new Clause had been accepted, the latter definition would have been relevant but I submit that, since it was not, it is total nonsense even after all these years to go on calling this the "Monopolies Commission".

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The point I made was not to defend the existing title as being precisely accurate but that there was no case for removing the established existing though slightly inaccurate title in order to replace it with a new one even more inaccurate.

Mr. Channon: Of the two titles, "Commission for Competition" is the better. I am surprised, in view of the hon. Gentleman's political views, that he should say that something which has lasted for 17 years although inaccurate should nevertheless go on into the indefinite future. I thought that he wanted nothing to stand in the way of sweeping change. Even the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), whose views would surely commend themselves to the hon. Gentleman, is on record as saying that the name is totally inaccurate and misleading.
During Committee stage, the Minister without Portfolio was put up to defend the name. I think that he had great difficulty in doing so. When the 1948 Act was going through the House, he said that the term "Monopolies Commission" was misleading and he begged the present Prime Minister, who was then

in charge of the Bill, to change the name, but without success. Now he finds himself arguing that the name should continue. That, I suppose, is what happens when one gets office in later years and has to reverse one's opinions.
On Third Reading of the 1948 Act, the Prime Minister, then President of the Board of Trade, said:
One of the respects in which it is least perfect—and this is something on which we are all agreed—is the name of the Commission and the name of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 2165.]
That was true in 1948 and is true today. There is no party issue about this. The Conservative Party was at fault, no doubt, in not changing the name when legislating in 1956. The present Government are at fault in not changing it now.
Many alternative names have been suggestive. In 1948, "Restrictive Business Practices" was favoured but that would be inappropriate now. Names suggested more recently include "National Trade Commission", "Trade and Industry Commission", Market Domination and Mergers Commission", "Trade and Industrial Practices Commission" and "Trade Practices Commission".
During the Committee stage the Minister of State said that he would like to consider the matter again. I am sure that he has done so very carefully. He said that if there was general agreement he would agree to the name "Mergers and Monopolies Commission". Naturally, there was not general agreement on that. The first half would be accurate but the second half would perpetuate the inaccuracy we are concerned about.
We hoped that the Government would have put down on Report an Amendment that would have reflected new and dynamic thinking on the subject. It is true that they have had one or two other things to think about in the last two or three months. But the Minister of State has had some all-night sittings in which to cogitate about the matter. We are disappointed that our alternative suggestion is not accepted.
The term "Commission for Competition" would be better for a variety of reasons. It is shorter, very much nicer and is much more accurate than the present name. It is extremely important to choose a name that gives the impression


that we wish to promote competition and that we are not in some way making people who come before the Commission feel that they are being condemned by being sent before it, which some of my hon. Friends have suggested as being the case in the past.
I have always felt that the danger was that, since there was no general agreement on a new name, we would be left with the worst of all possible worlds. That seems to be the situation. There has been no agreement in the House generally about a name. Therefore, we are to be left, possibly for the next 17 years, in the ridiculous state of affairs with a name which no one defends. There is only one name that I have heard that is worse—the "Commission for Socialist Emulation". Anxious though he is, I am sure, to give way on this point, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will resist the hon. Member for Putney.
I was suspicious when my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford began to quote Humpty Dumpty, although I agreed with the reference, I could not speak for the accuracy of the quotation. When the President of the Board of Trade began to refer to "impenetrability", I was hoping that he would go further in Humpty Dumpty. I am glad for the sake of greater accuracy he has now obtained a copy, for Humpty Dumpty goes on:
I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stay here all the rest of your life.
The House will be well aware that we do not mean to stay here for the rest of our lives—

Sir D. Glover: I do.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend may wish to stay for the rest of his life, but not for the rest of the night.
Without very great reluctance, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to follow the advice of Humpty Dumpty when Alice says:
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra'".
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last agreed to pay the members of

the Commission extra in view of his arguments about impenetrability and Alice in Wonderland.
This is not a party matter, but I think that there has been general regret that it has been impossible to find some other and more satisfactory name than "Monopolies Commission". I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not closed his mind on this issue and that if some alternative can be found in another place, or even in some later legislation, the name will be changed. I hope that the day will not be too far distant when, with the general agreement of the House, we can find some more appropriate name than that which has been in existence for far too long. I cannot advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the House, although we feel strongly about the matter. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not from that deduce that this is not something about which we feel extremely strongly, but that he will continue his researches and at some other time be able to produce a more appropriate name.

Mr. Jay: By leave of the House; although I am regretfully unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman and although he found some difficulty getting his tongue around the word "oligopolistic", which is only one syllable fewer than "impenetrability", I should like to congratulate him on what I believe to have been his first appearance at the Box.

Mr. Bernard Floud: I entirely agree with the sentiments about the present name of the Commission. I made it clear on Second Reading that I wished that we could find a new name. However, the suggested name, "Commission for Competition" is even more misleading, if that is possible, than the present name. As hon. Members will be aware, the basic philosophy of the whole of this legislation is that a monopoly is neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad. It must follow from that equally that competition is neither necessarily good, nor necessarily bad. It seems to follow quite conclusively from that that it would be thoroughly misleading to rename the Commission the "Commission for Competition", which clearly gives the impression that competition in itself is something which must be pursued at all costs.
Therefore, while I agree that "Monopolies Commission" is a bad name, "Commission for Competition" gives the impression that competition is to be pursued willy nilly, and that name is therefore rather worse and ought to be resisted.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Lewis Carroll permitting, is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at the end to insert:
(b) to allow an increase in the maximum number of members.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, at end insert:
(e) to provide that not more than seven members of the Commission may be employed as such in a full-time capacity.
with the proviso that Mr. Speaker has said that, if the Opposition so require, there can be a Division on Amendment No. 7.

Mr. Jay: Amendment No. 4, together with Amendment No. 76 and Amendment No. 78, is put forward in accordance with an assurance given in Committee. It is one of the many Amendments which we have introduced to meet the views of hon. Members and I am happy to think that we shall all agree about it.
These Amendments would permit the Board of Trade at any time to increase the maximum number of members of the Monopolies Commission, as I suppose we may now be allowed to call it. One of the principal purposes of the Bill is to increase the size of the Commission and in its original form the Bill increased the number from 10 to 25. If the Amendment were accepted, the Board of Trade would have power to increase the number by Statutory Instrument at any time to such number as the Board thought fit.
This seems a reasonable and desirable flexibility. I have often thought that we tend to legislate with too great precision and too great rigidity and that in our legislation we

sometimes lay down precisely how large some authority should be, or we prescribe over-exact limits of that kind, and it then turns out that it would have been much more sensible to have had a larger or smaller body, or more flexibility in some other respect. I do not believe that it is necessary to limit action as rigidly as that. These things are often better left to discretion and common sense in administration and I am sure that it is sensible to give the Board of Trade this latitude.
I do not know whether it is possible for me to refer to Amendment No. 7 before it has been moved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to it. It will be discussed, but it will not be moved except formally for a Division later, if necessary.

Mr. Jay: I suppose that I am allowed to know what is in it, or it will be difficult to praise or criticise it.
Amendment No. 7, which has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, would provide for the appointment of up to six deputy-chairmen where the Bill at present provides for only three and would require the chairman and any deputy-chairmen to be appointed in a full-time capacity.
We are not convinced that this would be desirable, for much the same reasons as I have advanced in favour of the Government Amendment. It would impose too much rigidity and would require—it does not merely say "may"—any deputy-chairman and the chairman to be employed in a full-time capacity. As the Bill stands, it will be possible for the Board of Trade to appoint the number of people it thinks most appropriate and to arrange for those who are able to be full time and to add such persons as have the necessary qualifications whether able to work full or only part time. I merely say that we should not limit ourselves unnecessarily if that is to deprive the Board of Trade of flexibility.

Mr. Peter Emery: There is a slight error in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Our Amendment allows for certain members of the Commission to be employed full-time. It is permissive and not mandatory. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to suggest that we propose that they should mandatorily be employed full-time.

Mr. Jay: The Amendment certainly provides that there may not be more than the number seven and in that that is a limitation I should have thought that it was undesirable. There is not much between us. The essential point is that we propose to give power to increase the number beyond 25 and we are all agreed that that will be an improvement.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: I am sure all those on both sides who served on the Committee will welcome the Government Amendments which it is now proposed to insert. In an earlier discussion it was suggested that we should have a "Committee for Competition"—a slip of the tongue—in place of the "Commission for Competition." I think that the Committee which has been working on this Bill deserves this name. It has been anxious to do everything it could to strengthen the legislation and to ensure that the monopoly legislation of this country is improved. Therefore, we all welcome the Government Amendments which are placed before us by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon. We agree with him that there should be no limit on the number of part-time members, because the amount of work which these people do relative to the cost to the Exchequer is very great indeed. One should pay tribute to those on the Commission who do an enormous amount of work. If more like them can be recruited to help in the work of the Commission I think we should all support it.
The second Government Amendment is concerned with limiting their terms of office. Am I right in thinking—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We must leave that Amendment until we reach it otherwise we shall get confused.

Mr. Higgins: In that case I will turn to the Opposition Amendment we have proposed but which has not been selected. I think that the President of the Board of Trade has somewhat misunderstood what this Amendment is about. I should point out that it uses the words:
to provide that not more than seven members of the Commission may be employed as such in a full-time capacity.
There is no reference to full-time members being employed as chairmen or as deputy-chairmen. We are suggesting

that there should be an element of flexibility and, given that the Commission will in future be working in groups, as a general rule it would be desirable that the chairman of each individual group, and possibly the deputy-chairman, should be a full-time member of the Commission. We were not suggesting, as the President of the Board of Trade appears to believe, that the chairman must necessarily be a full-time member. We were simply seeking to increase the number of full-time members, subject to some qualifications which I shall mention in a moment.
We were suggesting that the full-time members should, if necessary, serve as chairmen or deputy-chairmen, but if it was desirable they should serve in some other capacity then they should be allowed to do so. The President of the Board of Trade, when he looks at this again and comes to sum up, will appreciate what I am saying and realise that he has somewhat misunderstood the Amendment. I think it is vital, if the Commission is to work in groups, that there should be a number of full-time members. This is, first, because in the kind of investigation which the Commission is carrying out, a large amount of data will accumulate and the handling of this is something which a full-time member is best qualified to deal with.
Secondly, it is essential for there to be one or two full-time members available on each group of the Commission to whom the permanent staff can refer in cases of doubt and to whom people in the firms which are being investigated may refer at any time. It is quite unreasonable if a firm is being investigated by a part of the Commission, sitting as a separate group, to have no one on that group full-time whom they can consult on a particular query. Unless we have more full-time members we shall inevitably slow down the workings of the Commission, whereas on both sides of the House we are anxious to do everything to ensure that investigations proceed as rapidly as possible. It is unfair for investigations to continue as long as they have done in recent cases—something over four years on occasions.
Finally, we want to have more full-time members because we feel that people on the Commission should be of two kinds. They should be part-time or amateur


members, who give their experience to the Commission, and in addition it is desirable to recruit a number of full-time members, who can make work on the Commission their career. For this reason I think it is essential we should make provision for more full-time members to be added to the strength of the Commission.
The Amendment as drafted says that we should provide not more than seven members of the Commission in a full-time capacity. Although this clearly places a limit on the number of full-time members, it is not inconsistent with encouraging the recruitment of more than the present number onto the Commission. We are trying to achieve a balance between the full-time members and the part-time members, and it would be undesirable if there were to be no limits on the full-time members. The balance might be destroyed and the services of some of the voluntary members who serve in addition to their normal work would be lost.
That is the first reason why a limit is suggested. The second reason is because there should clearly be some form of financial control on the number of full-time members. As the legislation stands it is completely open-ended. There is no limit on the number of full-time members, and we feel this should be limited to some extent because it is undesirable that the Board of Trade should have a completely free hand. I should like to stress as strongly as I possibly can to the President of the Board of Trade that the fact that we have imposed a limit for these two good reasons in no way suggests we would not like to see the number of full-time members increased considerably. We on this side of the House would suggest up to a maximum of seven. We would not like to remove from the President of the Board of Trade the right to propose that more full-time members should be appointed.
We feel that there should be a continuing flexibility in this respect. That is why the Amendment, as now drafted, does not specify seven as a maximum and a minimum. What we hope on this occasion is that, as an indication of the good will which has been exchanged on the Floor of the Committee, the President of the Board of Trade will at this stage,

or some later stage in the passage of the Bill, take the opportunity to announce that he is going to appoint seven full-time members who will take up their duties at the earliest possible moment.
I think that the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Board of Trade was rather pessimistic in winding up the debate on this matter in Committee when he said that perhaps three or four could be found to serve as full-time members of the Commission. I am quite sure that there are a very large number of people, well qualified, who could be found to serve as full-time members of this Commission, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, subject to the limits we have suggested for the two reasons I have given, will take the earliest opportunity to appoint them.

Mr. J. T. Price: I hope I shall not be thought ungracious if I intervene briefly to say that I, for one, do not fully share the views expressed on this Amendment, either by the President of the Board of Trade or by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I say that not with any intention of destroying the atmosphere of harmony which seems to have descended upon our deliberations but purely because I am always deeply apprehensive about any executive having an unfettered discretion to do what it likes. I say that without apology to members of my own Government or to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am quite impartial and quite liberal-minded. This idea that in all circumstances an executive can be trusted to act judiciously when it is in possession of an unfettered discretion to appoint as many as it likes, and whom it likes to a particular office, is something that I would regard as doubtful social policy.
I hope that we shall get first-class men to man the Commission and that its work will succeed, but it should be said in the House without malice or acrimony, or without wishing to be polemical, that if it is known that the Government, whatever their colour, have an unfettered discretion to multiply the numbers on bodies of this sort we might be setting up some kind of breeder reactor, to use a term of the Atomic Energy Authority, because people who operate in the same professional fields have a sort of freemasonry among themselves. [An HON. MEMBER:


"Jobs for the boys."] Somebody says, "Jobs for the boys". That may be so. I was being less controversial. Like many hon. Members, I am sufficiently knowledgeable about the conditions which obtain to know that once we put a charmed circle in a position of authority it will increase its scope and numbers by bringing other people within it. This goes for lawyers. There are one or two very distinguished lawyers sitting in the House, and I never want to fall out with them. I just want to have a bit of fun occasionally.
I do not want to elaborate this. I think that I should sit down, having made my protest. I do not want to waste time. I want the Bill to get the Royal Assent as quickly as possible. However, I did not want to let this opportunity pass without making it clear that, since it seemed to be assumed that there was a unanimous opinion on this matter, I am not fully in sympathy with the idea. There should always be a limit on the powers vested in any executive, particularly a Government Ministry. I hope that these few desultory remarks will be taken in the spirit in which I have delivered them. I take it that there will not be a Division on the Amendment so that I shall not be embarrassed by having to go through the Opposition Lobby. I can therefore speak with greater abandon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am being objective. Hon. Members opposite should not twit me when I am trying to say something in a few simple words without any semantic obfuscation, or anything like that. It should be put on record that the House is critical of unfettered power being given to any executive.

Sir D. Glover: It is not often that the representatives of the constituencies of Ormskirk and Westhoughton, which run parallel to each other in Lancashire, speak on the same subject in unison. I tried to speak when the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) was called to say almost exactly what I proposed to say. This shows that what Lancashire thinks today perhaps England will think tomorrow.
Last week we celebrated the 700th anniversary of this ancient House. If former Members of the House, over its 700 years' history, had expressed the views

expressed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, with which I agree, the Executive would not be as powerful as it is and the House would have a great deal more authority than it has. The House does not have the obligation to produce legislation in detail. That is for the Executive. It is a great strength to the House that the Executive works inside its walls. But the House, as a House, is a different body from the Executive. The Executive are only part of the House, and the House collectively has a much greater responsibility to control the affairs of the Executive and the funds which it provides to enable them to carry out their policies.
I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton that any legislation which gives the Executive power to appoint more people without let or hindrance is bad. If there is a necessity to increase the numbers, then it is the responsibility of the Government to get the authority of the House to do it. Therefore, having debated the matter in Committee and realising the need for more chairmen for this and for that, I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed on both sides of the House, and it was a very good thing that the hon. Member for Westhoughton placed on record the fact that this House should not pass legislation which gives the Executive carte blanche. It is our responsibility so to frame our legislation that the House understands what will happen as a result of it. We are getting very near the line on these two Amendments, which give the Executive more power than they should have.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am struck with some terror when I find that there is agreement on a matter of fair sweetness and light between the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I think that we can take what they have said as being a reasoned and reasonable approach to Government powers. May I take their argument a stage further as it applies to the Amendment. It is proposed to give power to appoint people to hurry up matters for the benefit of industry and of the people being investigated. Therefore, although I would normally


agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, I believe that the open-ended commitment in the Amendment goes a certain way to meet the points made by my hon. Friends in Committee when we were, and are, very concerned that the work and reports of the Commission should be dealt with more expeditiously than in the past.
The President of the Board of Trade, during the debate on the White Paper on monopolies and mergers, said:
I still find it hard to believe that the new procedure will speed things up …. We are, of course, to have a larger Commission again; but it is also to have the job of investigating mergers, and, on balance, I do not see any evidence that the delays of the past are likely to be lessened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 56.]
He then found himself in the position of having limited himself in the Bill to 25 members. In Committee we pressed very strongly that this number should be increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk may be interested to know that we propose a limit in our Amendment but that we are willing to accept the Government's Amendment. I take the point that what is needed is flexibility.
On that note, I turn to the next Amendment, because it seems to me that it gives flexibility but allows the Board of Trade to employ a number of highly-trained and skilled people who perhaps will be able to pursue a career in the service of the Commission. Although we have not gone so far as to stipulate that it must be the chairman of any sub-division of the Commission who carries out the investigation, we thought that it might be a useful asset that the chairman should be a person employed in a full-time capacity. We thought that we might help in the cause of flexibility by making provision for the Commission to employ a number of full-time employees who would permanently be available to serve the Commission in its investigations.
We realise that we are dealing with the investigation not only of monopolies but of mergers. It would be wrong of me to mention later Amendments which deal with speeding up the work of the Commission, but it is essential that there should be not only flexibility but people available permanently to enable the Commission to carry out its work with the greatest speed and thoroughness. In the

concept of flexibility, we felt that it would be easier in Amendment No. 7 to provide for a number of full-time employees and for the Commission to use specialists who were brought in for specific investigations or inquiries which might be referred to it.
I would be critical to some extent of the lack of use of specialists when certain considerations have been applied by the Commission in the past. It is important that we should have industrial experts who understand the problem whether of a merger or of a monopolistic practice. Such specialists might be seconded from industry for two or three months to deal with a specific inquiry. If the stage was reached of having to continue investigations for two or three years, there would be little chance of getting men of the calibre whom I would wish to see to give to the permanent members the specialist knowledge which is so obviously necessary.

Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Member constantly refers to men. Is he recommending the exclusion of women?

Mr. Emery: No. I was using a purely legalistic term, in that respect, men and women might be synonymous. I have heard that "man" embraces "woman". That, however, is a debate which is perhaps taking place in another place. I do not intend to be drawn away from the Amendment. Quite obviously, there are women specialists who could serve on the Commission. I understand the way in which the hon. Member for Westhoughton presented his argument about jobs for the boys, but I do not think that it applies to these Amendments.
I end by quoting a document from the Federation of British Industries which, I know, has been sent to the President of the Board of Trade. It states:
The F.B.I. has frequently complained that the staff of the Monopolies Commission and the members of the Monopolies Commission are sometimes inadequate in knowledge, training and experience and that it was this inadequancy which made investigations so long and laborious. An improved staff would be desirable in any event. The provisions about mergers make this essential.
I hope that those remarks about the enlargement and improvement of the staff will be kept in mind by the President of the Board of Trade, as well as the question of an increase in maximum numbers.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to read carefully what has been said in this debate concerning the number of full-time members of the Commission. I do not ask for any major undertaking, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be useful for the Board of Trade to be able to appoint a larger number of full-time members. If he feels that that is desirable, he will be able to rectify the position in another place.

Mr. Jay: I hesitate to intervene again, but I should like to clarify one or two points. I do not like to disturb the harmony between the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), but they have failed to consider carefully enough the Amendments which I am introducing. The two hon. Members complained that the Board of Trade is being given power without let or hindrance and without any Parliamentary sanction or control to the appointment of an indefinite number of people. If, however, they refer to Amendments Nos. 76 and 78, they will find that the former, in Schedule 1, page 20, line 10, states:
the Board may from time to time by order made by statutory instrument increase the maximum number of members
whilst Amendment No. 78, in page 20, line 27, states:
A statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
There will, therefore, be Parliamentary control. It will be quite possible for either hon. Member to persuade the House to annul an order made by the Board of Trade.

Mr. J. T. Price: My right hon. Friend is now trailing his coat. Let me say this to him. I happen to be a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments of the House of Commons and I find that almost half of the Statutory Instruments which come before that Committee upstairs for consideration, whether they are in order before they are dealt with, are already in operation before they are laid upon the Table of the House. This is a serious criticism of which, I hope, my right hon. Friend will

take notice. The system of Statutory Instruments in its present form is being grossly abused and I do not pay much attention to it in relation to the Bill.

Mr. Jay: That is a criticism of the whole system and not of the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) disputed my statement that the Opposition Amendments would have limited the power of the Board of Trade and would give it less flexibility. I had studied not merely the Amendment which was before us, but Opposition Amendments, in particular Amendment No. 80, in Schedule 1, page 20, line 31. We study all Amendments which are put down and not merely those which are called. That Amendment states:
and the chairman and all deputy chairmen shall be employed as members of the Commission in a full-time capacity".
I understand that that Amendment is not being called and that hon. Members opposite are not pressing that suggestion.
That being so, we are brought back to Amendment No. 7, which states:
to provide that not more than seven members of the Commission may be employed as such in a full-time capacity.
The only effect of making that change in the Bill would be this. As the Bill stands, it is possible for the Board of Trade to appoint five, six, seven, eight, nine or as many persons in a full-time capacity as it considers desirable. The effect of the Amendment would be to say that it must not appoint more than seven. Therefore, it would merely limit the number who could be appointed in that way. This would be the effect simply of adopting the one Amendment which hon. Members opposite now propose, since the other Amendments are not being pressed. It would, therefore, simply limit our ability to appoint these extra members if we wished to do so. No case has been made for that.
I fully agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that we should study the debate and that there probably is a strong case, as it is possible to do under the Bill, for appointing specialists and, possibly, full-time specialists for particular inquiries by the Commission. Nothing major is now left between us and I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: The President of the Board of Trade attacked me for what I said in my speech. I ought to point out to him that he is rather anticipating. He has referred to the fact that certain Amendments would remove the objections of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and of myself. Those Amendments, however, have not yet become part of the Bill. They are Amendments still to be discussed.

Mr. Jay: I do not wish to continue this too long, but as I heard your predecessor at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I understood that those two Amendments were to be discussed with the Amendment which we are now discussing.

Amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from the first "members" to the end of line 20 and to insert:
without limiting their total term of office".
I think that with this Amendment we are also discussing Amendment No. 77 which is consequential to it, in Schedule 1, page 20, line 17.
This also carries out an undertaking given in Committee, that we would consider removing the 12-year ceiling upon the appointment of any member of the Commission, a ceiling which has existed since the 1948 legislation. I think that this also is unduly unrestrictive. It might mean that a useful and valuable member of the Commission could not be reappointed, possibly even in the middle of an inquiry into a monopoly or merger, because the 12-year limit had been reached. I myself have never thought that absolutely rigid age limits, or termination of a possible period of appointment, are very sensible, when we all know that different individuals have different capacities which last to a different age, and survive for a different number of years. I think that the Committee was quite right to suggest this extra degree of flexibility and I hope the House will approve it.

Mr. John Hall: At the close of my remarks on Second Reading I said:
We rest assured that the Government will co-operate with us, as we will co-operate with them, in improving the Bill for the benefit

of industry and for the economy of the country as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 1321.]
We think we have succeeded in doing this very well, because this is one of what will be a series of Amendments which follow our deliberations in Committee upstairs and which, especially in this case, are a tribute to the perseverence, first of my hon. Friends who pressed this particular Amendment on the Government despite the fact that in the first place it was rejected, and also, of course, to the good sense and intelligence of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in accepting the words of wisdom which were uttered from this side. I am certain that during the debates which will follow on Amendments which we have yet to consider we shall be hearing time and time again from the Government benches resounding and heartfelt and sincere tributes to the help given by this side in improving the Bill. This Amendment is almost in the form of that which we originally moved. Therefore, we welcome the Amendment very much. We think it is an improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Higgins: I do not want to delay the House for more than a minute, but I think we should emphasise how much we appreciate this Amendment and that it will make it easier for full-time members to be appointed. In Committee the Minister of State said, as I have mentioned earlier, that he thought that there would be only three or four members who could be found to serve in a full-time capacity on the Commission. We do very much hope that an early announcement will be made by the Government saying they do propose to appoint more full-time members, and that as a result of having accepted what was our Amendment they are prepared to appoint such members to serve full-time.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I think my remarks are being misunderstood, largely because I did not explain myself clearly enough. If I recollect aright, I was talking hypothetically, saying, "Suppose we could get only three or four members". That, at least, was my intention. I was not intending to suggest it would be possible to get only three or four.

Amendment agreed to.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 1, to leave out paragraph (c).
It may be convenient at the same time to consider Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, in Schedule 1, page 23, line 44, and in page 24, line 42.
This Amendment, for the elimination of Clause 1(2,c), is really consequential on the Amendment which the House has just been considering and has accepted. Under the Bill as it stood it was desired that there should be power to extend the period of office of members of the Commission for six months, but now that that period of appointment is unlimited this power is unnecessary, and we therefore suggest that it should be removed.

Mr. John Hall: This continues the good work of improving the Bill. I am particularly glad the Amendment was moved by the Minister without Portfolio because he promised in Committee that he would look at this point and said he would consider as an alternative an Amendment to the same end might be achieved by extending the period of six months. The Government have gone rather further than we did in extending the period.
It is clear that the Minister of State, who said he wished to preserve an open mind, has done that very thing. In the past an open mind has been defined as one so open a wind whistles through it. I would not say that that applies in this case to the hon. Gentleman. He has applied an open mind to the problem and introduced an Amendment we on this side of the House certainly support.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 6, at the end to insert:
(e) to make provision for the carrying out of steps preliminary to the investigation by the Commission of matters referred to it.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can also consider Amendment No. 9, in line 16, at end insert:
(4) Before proceeding upon any investigation pursuant to a reference made under section 2(1) of the principal Act the Commission shall—

(a) direct one of their officers to make a preliminary investigation of the facts which appear to him, to be material to the subject matter of such reference and of the questions

and issues likely to arise upon the investigation thereof by the Commission and to state in a report to the Commission the nature of such facts, questions and issues; and
(b) send to any person who appears to them to have an interest in the subject matter of such reference a copy of such report.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In Committee we had a long debate on the subject of whether or not there should be a registrar, and I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that, urging that course, I made a speech which extends over 12 columns. We still think we were right about that.
We do not wish to return to it in its full, fine glory: the Amendment is for a mini-Registrar; a half. It is best set out in Amendment No. 9, that one of the Commission should be directed
to make a preliminary investigation of the facts which appear to him to be material to the subject matter of such reference and of the questions and issues likely to arise upon the investigation thereof …
It is, therefore, to describe the orbit of the reference, and to
report to the Commission the nature of such facts, questions and issues
and to send a copy of that report, which limits the field of the inquiry, to anybody who, he thinks, has an interest in the subject matter.
This will help to secure one of the objects which we had in our original proposal; it will define the issues at an early stage of the proceedings rather more closely. Of course, under this proceeding the member of the Commission so chosen would not have the duty of deciding what reference should be made. That would remain, as the Government have always insisted it should, upon the Board of Trade, and would not go to the Registrar. There will in fact be no registrar, but one member of the Commission, we think, should have this function of defining the orbit of the inquiry as far as possible, defining the issues to be included, and to inform interested parties of his findings. We think that this would result in greater speed, and also, and more important, in greater fairness, in that those persons whose interests were affected would know at an early stage exactly the sort of matters which they would be expected to answer, where the crux of the inquiry was likely to come, what sort of evidence they ought to produce, and directed to what points, instead of the sort of roving commission by which


an inquiry now proceeds in the first few weeks or even months. If the issues and the orbit can be defined by this preliminary report it is obvious that the actual inquiry will be quicker and will be much fairer.
When I say that this is really only half a Registrar, or a mini-Registrar, I do not wish to decry the importance of the proposal, but merely to say that it does not include in the functions of such a person the proposed equal, if not more important, function of choosing the actual reference to be made. It goes some way to meet the important principle originally set out in the valuable pamphlet, "Monopoly and Public Interest" published by the Conservative Political Centre, on which such splendid praise was lavished from both sides of the Committee upstairs, the important principle of the separation of the functions of presentation and adjudication.
We envisage that one member of the Commission will present the case to his fellows, he having done all the preliminary work, and having told the parties what they must expect in the way of the field of inquiry and the points of inquiry. That will, I think, be acceptable to the people who are to be investigated, the industries, or professions, or commercial gentlemen, or whoever it is, because they will know at an earlier stage exactly what they have to meet, and I think it will mean that the actual sittings of the full Commission will be far fewer and far more effective.

Mr. Darling: The hon and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has really moved two Amendments. The first one, I suggest, is not necessary for his purpose. In fact, if it is intended as a paving Amendment, it is technically defective, because if he reads Clause 1 he will see that it says:
The constitution of the Monopolies Commission, the discharge of its functions and other matters dealt with in Schedule 1 to this Act shall be governed by the provisions there set out, being provisions which reproduce, with the modifications mentioned below, …
What the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to do in the first Amendment is to modify something that is not there in the Schedule, which is rather a difficult exercise; but I do not want to labour this point, because I think that the

second Amendment stands by itself and does not require the paving Amendment.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the second Amendment covers two points. First, it provides for one of the staff of the Monopolies Commission to discharge some of the functions suggested by the previous Administration for a Registrar of Monopolies, although not under that name. The second part of it provides that the official report to the Commission on the issues likely to arise in an investigation should be made available to all persons who have an interest in the subject of the inquiry.
I must begin by congratulating the hon. and learned Gentleman for so adroitly finding a way to criticise again the Government's decision not to provide for the appointment of a Registrar of Monopolies in the Bill. This is an issue which we discussed very fully in Committee. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we had 12 columns from him alone. It was not by any means a wasted discussion. I thought that it was a very useful one, and I also thought that I had convinced the Committee that, however strong was the case for appointing a registrar, it would be wrong to try to include it in this legislation at this time. I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with the idea of appointing a Registrar, but I felt that it would cause difficulties, which we discussed in Committee.
6.45 p.m.
The Second part of the Amendment raises again the allegation that was made in Committee, if I might put it like that, that the rambling or roving procedure of the Commission means that people do not know in good time the issues that are to be regarded as important, and the case that they have to answer.
On the first point, the absence of a provision for an independent Registrar, I do not think that there is anything new to say, except that I think a mini-Registrar is certainly not a real substitute for the Registrar. I think that we shall have to consider appointing a Registrar at a later stage, in the later legislation, but certainly not in this Bill.
I think that we made it clear in Committee, and certainly we were advised, that the necessary provisions for the appointment of a Registrar would be very


lengthy and complex. We have decided to achieve by other means the advantages that might have resulted from the provision of a Registrar. The Commission will be enlarged. It will be able to work in groups or panels. The staff will be increased, and we feel that to adopt the first part of the Amendment would only delay the new start that we want to make with the Commission and the new procedures which the Commission will follow.
As I have said, the second part of Amendment No. 9 implies that the Monopolies Commission's present procedure is not adequate, and that the issues which emerge as important in the Commission's report may not have been fully debated with the parties concerned. I think that this allegation is frequently made, but in fact the procedure which is followed in the Commission's investigations should in practice ensure that the authorities know which issues are likely to be significant after the Commission's preliminary factual investigations.
I do not think that we can put this job on to one member of the Commission. It is a job for the staff of the Commission. The Commission transmits to the industry concerned in the investigation a statement of the issues which the Commission believes it will have to consider. A note of the complaints which have reached the Commission is also sent out to the industry concerned, and after this has been done, and after the industry has been informed of the facts which have emerged from the preliminary investigation, a public interest hearing is then held with the industry concerned to discuss all the points.
Thus, the present procedure does in fact give us the investigation, the submission to the industry of the facts, the submission to the industry concerned of the case that has to be considered, and gives the industry an opportunity of presenting its side of the picture. We do not, therefore, think that it is necessary, or appropriate, for this legislation to require the Commission to follow a particular procedure with the object of informing an industry of the relevant issues. I think that this is something which in practice must be left to the Commission, but the method which the

Commission has adopted for its work, and the method which will continue, will I think prove on examination to be satisfactory for the purpose which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
Certainly at this stage we do not want unnecessary delay in the investigation of monopolies or mergers. Some of the references which have been announced will, of course, fall to the new Commission to look into, and we do not want to delay the building up of the staff. We do not want to delay the work which has to be done. We fear that if the Amendments were accepted they would add very little, if anything, to the value of the Bill in this respect and that in some ways they would be detrimental to it; certainly they would cause delay, which at this stage we do not want to contemplate. I therefore cannot advise the House to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Peter Emery: In column 162 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 27th April, 1965, I read:
I have been expecting hon. Members to look up the debate on the Restrictive Practices Act in which I made a cogent plea for the appointment of a Registrar to deal with monopolies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th April, 1965; c. 162.]
That was said by the Minister of State for the Board of Trade, who has just suggested that the Registrar is not necessary.

Mr. Darling: At this stage.

Mr. Peter Emery: I have gone to the trouble of looking up reports of some of his speeches. He made a number of speeches about the Registrar and the Monopolies Commission, and I will bore neither the House nor him by quoting them. The speech which I liked most is reported in column 153 of the debate on 6th July, 1964, in which he said:
It is for this reason that I believe that all proposed mergers should be reported in confidence to the Registrar.…. The right hon. Gentleman hopes that this will happen in practice without any need to write it into legislation, but I think that it should be written in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 153.]
We agree with the Minister of State; we think that it should be written in the legislation and that this is the right place to do it. I also agree with him in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on finding yet another means of keeping in order this debate on the Registrar. We know only too well that, because of the narrow limitations of the Financial Resolution, we have had considerable trouble in keeping in order in debating this very important subject of the future organisation of the Monopolies Commission. Because of that difficulty we have had to use this rather emaciated form of Registrar. There can be little doubt in my hon. Friends' minds that a full Registrar with full powers would be the ideal. But if we cannot get that we believe that the Government are being very foolish if they will not accept the need for the establishment of a Registrar in the Bill to carry out the forms of inquiry which we have suggested.
I will not go over the debates which took place in Committee, but I must refer to the fact that two Government supporters in the Committee spoke fully in agreement: with the proposal that this matter should be pursued. I am delighted to see one of them, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), enter the Chamber. I hope that he will remain here and make yet another powerful speech on the subject, because I must tell him that we are still having trouble with the Government about it.
It is not good enough that we should be fobbed off, as we were in Committee, with the argument that this is not the right time to start with a Registrar and that it must be done in later legislation. Here we have a complete revision of monopolies legislation.

Mr. Darling: Not complete.

Mr. Emery: Nearly complete. It is certainly not complete if we have no Registrar. Perhaps the Minister of State will nod his head about that, because I am convinced that those are his views, too. Why does not the Bill provide for a Registrar? The Minister of State argues that it would delay the work of the Monopolies Commission, but I cannot think how it would cause delay. The only delay could arise from the formation of the Department and the appointment of the man and, knowing how the Government have anticipated legislation such as the Control of Office and Industrial Development Bill, I am convinced that if they accepted the Amendment, then by the

time the Bill received Royal Assent they would be able to appoint a Registrar because they would have had some name in mind.
Would there be a delay in building up the Department and recruiting staff? The Minister of State shakes his head. That recruitment would have to be done in any case. The economists, the lawyers and all the rest of the staff needed to carry out the investigation would have to be recruited anyway. We suggest that it would have to be centralised in one Department under the Registrar. Industry would then know that they were dealing with the Registrar.
I was about to say that I am beside myself with the Government for their attitude, but that, of course, is not true. Nevertheless, I cannot understand why they wish to resist this proposal so strongly. There is nothing political in it. We are trying to provide a better method of investigation by which industry will know exactly who is carrying out the investigation, by which we ensure that someone is in charge of the investigation and by which we ensure that he is responsible for seeing that the investigation is speeded up. If there is any delay in the investigation and if we have a Registrar responsible, we shall know where to put the blame. Without him the blame may be dispersed throughout the Board of Trade or throughout the Commission.
The Government have not offered a reasonable case in answer to our arguments. We accept that the Amendment is not perfect. To remain in order we have had to word it to keep within the Financial Resolution and not to impose extra financial responsibilities. Because part of the Amendment is not as good as we should like, we should be foolish to force it to a Division, but my hon. Friends remain convinced that this form of organisation is not only essential but ought to be introduced now. It is a crying shame that the Government will not take the opportunity to start it in the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) may not be beside himself, but we on this side of the House are right beside him in support of the Amendment. When we debated this matter on Second Reading, in Committee and again now, it has


clearly emerged that there is basically agreement on both sides of the House, and yet the only explanation offered by the Government for refusing to accept the Amendment is that it would delay matters. The proposal for a Registrar was first introduced some months ago, and there is no reason why arrangements could not have been made in the interim for the appointment of the Registrar and his staff. I therefore hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider the matter and, at some later point, introduce a full-blooded Registrar.
The Amendment will enable the transition from the present situation to a full-blooded Registrar to be carried out fairly easily. It is very important that we should, in the field of monopolies, get away from the position where the decision to refer a particular industry, or a particular group of firms, to the Commission is in the hands of the Board of Trade, where it inevitably must be subject to a certain number of political cross-currents. It should be placed in the hands of a body which is both impartial and seen to be impartial.
It is for this reason that we on this side and hon. Members opposite have felt obliged to press the proposal for a Registrar. If we were to go to the interim suggestion which has been put forward by accepting these Amendments, or Amendments similarly worded, we should be able to establish a certain division of labour within the Commission's work. It is important that the earlier stages of an investigation, which are concerned with the collection of data on market shares and with the definition of the market which is said to be monopolised, should be carried out rapidly. This part of the work could reasonably be carried out by a mini-registrar and a particular section of the Commission's staff, because it is highly specialised and, at the same time, a purely factual investigation.
The trouble in many recent investigations is that the boards of companies and their very senior executives are involved in the investigation right from the beginning, through perhaps three or four years. They are, therefore, prevented from doing work on which they would be better employed—in increasing production or increasing exports. If the purely fact-finding part of the investigation

were handed to a mini-registrar and a particular part of the staff, they could deal at a lower level with those preparing the basic data, and they could present the basic case which is to be answered.
I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House would like to see any form of inquisitorial approach substituted for the Commission's approach. But we do think there is a case for the preliminary investigation to be dealt with in the way suggested. If the Government are not prepared to accept our proposals for a full-blooded Registrar at this stage, they should accept a reasonable transitional arrangement which goes some way towards it. We believe that if the investigations are split up in the way suggested the division of labour between the company, the mini-registrar and the mini-registrar's staff would be more efficient. It is for that reason that we hope, even at this late stage, that if he will not concede a full-blooded Registrar the President of the Board of Trade will at least concede a transitional arrangement of the kind we suggest in these Amendments.

Mr. John Harvey: It was not my intention to intervene, because I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee which tried to make some sense of this Bill. However, I had the advantage of serving for many months in 1962 and 1963 on the Committee appointed by Lord Butler which produced the booklet "Monopoly and the Public Interest" to which my hon. Friend has referred. In that Committee, we took expert evidence from all sorts of people who might be affected by this legislation. We considered in great detail American practice and Common Market practice, and all the evidence supported the need for a Registrar.
We have been reminded that the Minister of State's past utterances have supported this need, too. It is a crying shame that a Bill purporting to improve legislation in regard to monopolies and mergers should not provide for this vital point. In doing this, apart from the fact that it fails to divide the work in the way various of my hon. Friends have suggested, it also fails—and this is most important—to assure those who may be referred to the Commission of the complete fairness, which would be assured if


the work of the Commission as judges were separated from the work of the Commission as the body preparing the case it is to judge. This surely is the great advantage that the appointment of a registrar would give. So, having studied this problem in immense detail for those 10 months or so, I join those who urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about their present attitude.

Mr. Darling: My views have not changed, and I wish to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that this matter is still open. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. John Harvey) will see from the Committee proceedings that the reason I gave for not including the Registrar in this legislation was that given by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who pointed out when we were discussing the White Paper the complexities of this legislation and how difficult it was to produce a comprehensive Bill which, in our view, would have covered the point about the Registrar and also would have covered paragraphs 28 to 41 in the White Paper, which are not in this legislation.
The difficulties were such that we could not bring the Registrar into this legislation, which was introduced within a few weeks of our taking office, when we started from scratch and produced as quickly as possible the legislation, which was long overdue, to deal with mergers and the other things that are in the Bill. To have included the Registrar at that stage would have been too big an exercise, because anyone who cares to look at the Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1956 will find that the duties and legal responsibilities of the Registrar take up more than half the legislation.
However, I would remind hon. Members that the Government will have a second bite at the cherry within the not-too-distant future, and we will see then whether it is possible to carry out the wishes which hon. Members opposite have expressed. I myself am sorry that we could not do it in this legislation.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I say that we are delighted to hear that the Government are committed in principle to a Registrar.

Mr. Darling: No. Let me make this clear. I said very carefully indeed that my views have not changed and that my right hon. Friend has an open mind.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That means that half the Government are committed and that we are to have something on these lines within the foreseeable future. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 34 to leave out "free of charge or".
The Amendment arises out of the debate we had in Committee. The effect would be to enable the Board of Trade to refer to the Monopolies Commission some enterprise where services of a particular nature were rendered free of charge. I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which a purely charitable activity could require investigation by the Monopolies Commission, but it may be so. The suggestion was made by the Opposition in Committee, and we are not averse to accepting an Amendment which appears to us to be of an entirely innocuous character merely because it is put forward by the Opposition. If they desire this change in the Bill, we feel there is no objection to it, and I therefore hope it will be accepted by the House.

Mr. John Hall: I am delighted to learn from the Minister without Portfolio that he is not averse to accepting Amendments merely because they happen to have been suggested from this side of the House or, as it was, from this side of the Committee. This is fortunate, because most of the Amendments were moved by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Practically all the improvements to the Bill result from the hard work put in by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Amendment is in exactly the same words as that which we moved in Committee. It was moved by us originally because we thought that the words as they stood might provide some loophole, especially in the case of professional services which, taking advantage of the words, "free of charge", might manage to opt out of the purview of the Clause. This was one of the principal reasons why we tabled the Amendment.
The Government brought out the point that the words were inserted only in order to take out of the Bill any suggestion that charitable enterprises should come within the purview of the Clause. That was the only point which the Government made in Committee. It is a point which the Minister without Portfolio referred to again this evening. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said in a very cogent speech in Committee:
… there may be an occasion when workers in this field, who are utterly absorbed in and sometimes obsessed with their work, may try to keep the work entirely within their association or society, and adopt an attitude to prevent others helping. They are just as likely to do that if they give their services free as if they are paid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 29th April, 1965, c. 169.]
This is another reason why discretion should be given to the Board of Trade. The removal of these words will ensure that the Board of Trade will have power, if it wishes, to deal with the matter as it thinks fit.
We are delighted that the Government has seen fit to table an Amendment in exactly the same words as that which was originally proposed. We on this side very much welcome the change, as we shall be doing throughout the whole of the night as other Amendments which we originated in Committee are moved by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert:
other than a contract of service the principal terms of which have been negotiated by any body representing one or more of the parties to such contract and also other persons having a similar interest whether as employers or employees".
This is an Amendment somewhat similar to new Clause 2. Here, instead of dealing with the problems of nationalised industries, we are attempting to ensure that there are no specific exceptions in a Bill which seeks to include all contracts of services. This would mean that trade unions and the trade union movement could, if necessary be referred to the Commission.
It may be argued that this is not the most ideal method of dealing with problems

which are involved with trade unions at this time. I accept that immediately. The Bill sets out to bring in all forms of professions, whether it is solicitors or accountants and no matter whether those involved have spent many years training to obtain their professional qualifications. Therefore, we believe that it is nonsense to take in some sections of the community who provide services, whilst others who may be serving under a contract of service are excluded.
7.15 p.m.
May I clear up one other part of the Amendment which is, perhaps, the lesser part. The Amendment would ensure that lawyers in industry, accountants working on their own, and professional persons of that type, could be effected by the working of the Commission. It could be argued that the Bill, without the Amendment, would not cover these people.
I will state why we believe that power should exist to refer to the Commission monopolistic practices by the trade union movements. There can be little doubt that the problem of strikes, the size of the trade union movement and, indeed, the authority of the trade union movement, are causing great public concern. It may well be true that the number of days lost by strikes in this country is not as great as that applicable in other countries. However, the number of days lost by strikes here is appreciable. An analysis of the figures shows that 1·4 per cent. of the working population is on strike for one week a year. This may not be very much, but it is too much in this day and age when the country is concerned specifically with the problems of productivity and with attempting to ensure that everybody pulls his weight in order to increase our exports and our industrial production. A closer analysis of the figures shows that it is the equivalent of 88,750 people being on strike for a month.
We cannot afford that number of stoppages at this time. A Royal Commission is now considering the whole problem of the trade unions. In time, the recommendations of the Commission will be considered by the House and there will probably be new legislation. Despite this, there is no reason why the Government should not take this opportunity, perhaps only as a stop-gap


measure, to consider using the Commission when monopolistic practices are carried out by unions.
I want to refer to the type of thing which gives trade unions a bad name. I am a paid up member of a trade union, the same one as that of the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that that union of the Prime Minister's does not support the prices and incomes policy, but I do not think that is particularly relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Nor do I.

Mr. Emery: I am glad to have your agreement, Mr. Speaker. In this instance there is a general problem in that the public is becoming absolutely and completely exasperated by the apparent inability of the Government to take any action to investigate the actions of trade unions in certain circumstances. I want to refer to something which is uppermost in the minds of many people, namely, tie recent strike at London Airport. It was an unofficial strike, against the advice of the trade union officials. It affected tens of thousands of holidaymakers. It brought the condemnation of the Minister of Labour in these words:
The present dispute that has caused so much inconvenience to thousands of people is a disgrace.
Actually, this is a dispute between men and their union … and because of this scores of children are held at the airport. Thousands of holidaymakers have all their arrangements upset".
The problem here is that the Government are powerless to take any action to see whether the Monopolies Commission or anybody could come to a judgment about this sort of action. Here again one sees a vast union with considerable influence, a good deal of it for good, but which is not at all times able to control properly some of the actions of its members. I do not want to pontificate on what should or should not happen, but I say that if the Government are taking powers which could affect lawyers, solicitors and many of the other professions in this country, it does not seem right that the Government should say that the ordinary working population should not be covered by this legislation.
We are not in this Amendment attempting to mount an attack on trade unions. It

is not suggested that because we supported another part of the Bill we are willing to attack lawyers, solicitors or doctors. What we are saying, as we said when we dealt with the Amendments on the matter of the nationalised industries, is that the Government having decided to extend the whole scope of the Monopolies Commission in this Bill to cover many wider sections of the community than the original White Paper presented by my right lion. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) 15 months ago envisaged, we on this side of the House believe there is every reason to ensure that no section of the community should be given special treatment. All sections of the community should be open to the same sort of preference. It is for that reason that we have in this Amendment the words:
the principal terms of which have been negotiated by any body representing one or more of the parties to such contract …
The Government use honeyed words about wishing to ensure an improvement in productivity and in the actions of the trade union movement, and here they have an opportunity to show that these words really mean something. As I say, once we have a Report from the Royal Commission, it may be that this form of reference would not be necessary, but it seems to me that this power could be helpful not only to the President of the Board of Trade but also to the Minister of Labour. Therefore, we on this side of the House would be willing to see this power given to the Government, although we would hope that a better, longer-lasting and thorough form of legislation should be the outcome of the Royal Commission. However, until we have a Report from the Royal Commission and until action is taken by whichever Government it may be—I believe it will be a Conservative Government—this Amendment would go a long way in helping people to realise that there is no section of the community—industrial, trade union or Government—that could be above reference to the Monopolies Commission if it were so desired.

Mr. Peter Hordern: One of the distinctive features of the Bill is that for the first time in our consideration of monopolies, services will be included. Services are taken into account in the monopolies legislation of other countries,


but in other countries those services are specifically mentioned. It is a noticeable feature of this Bill that the only time that a service is mentioned is when it is desired to exempt it.
It seems to me that the Government have completely misunderstood the proper nature of the Monopolies Commission by attempting to exclude the restrictive practices engaged in by trade unions. If the professions such as solicitors, barristers, accountants, stockbrokers and members of the discount market are to be liable to be brought up before the Monopolies Commission as carrying out some form of restrictive service, it is surely not conceivable that those professions will be indicted. At least, I would hope not. If they were to be so indicted, it would be impossible to undertake the management of their business. In addition, the very nature of their business is international in scope, and the fact that other countries which carry out the same business have precisely the same mechanism makes it impossible to change the structure of those professions. In that case, it would seem that the Government have nothing whatever to fear in applying the examination of the Monopolies Commission to what are called restrictive practices on the part of labour.
It is not our position on this side of the House that all restrictive practices indulged in by labour are necessarily harmful. No doubt, a very good case can be made out to support some of these practices. But I suggest that by taking out the study of restrictive practices from the purview of the Commission it will seem to the public at large, and particularly to those dissident elements of the trade unions, that restrictive practices on the part of labour are in quite a different category. It may be said that labour restrictive practices are exempt from the purview of the Monopolies Commission in other countries. But the Government must take into account, if one is to adduce that argument, that the state of the law concerning the conduct of labour in other countries is far in advance of our own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) has voiced his opinion about the value of the Royal Commission. We all know what the Prime Minister has had to say about

Royal Commissions. I am not arguing about the effectiveness of the Royal Commission in studying the trade unions. I am not arguing about how effective its proposals would be. What I am saying is that to the general public and to some dissident parts of the trade unions it must appear that not only are some members of the T.U.C. represented on the Royal Commission but that the whole subject has been put away for another day.
The arguments in support of exempting labour restrictive practices are very old. In the debates in 1948 labour restrictive practices were referred to, although there was never at that time any suggestion of services being brought into the purview of the Monopolies Commission. Even so, they were definitely mentioned and there was a great deal of argument on both sides of the House as to whether restrictive practices engaged in by labour should be considered as suitable for reference to the Monopolies Commission.
I should like to mention the view of the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Prime Minister. His view was set out very clearly on 12th April, 1948, when he said:
It is our view that the country cannot afford any restrictive practices on either side of industry. Whatever fears of unemployment"—
and those fears were very strong indeed in 1948—
might have led to practices restricting production or raising costs, there is no justification today for them, and just as in the Monopolies Bill we are seeking powers to deal with restrictive business practices, so the Government will do everything in their power to secure the dropping, removal and diminution of restrictive practices of every kind on either side of industry.—[OFFICTAL REPORT, 12th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 665–6.]
That was in 1948 and in those days there was a good deal of unemployment, but many years have passed and at present the unemployment figure is about 275,000. We have the best record of employment of any industrialised country in the Western world, and therefore I do not feel that the argument of fear of unemployment can be adduced any longer.
7.30 p.m.
The other argument in those days was that labour practices were not suitable to be brought before the Monopolies Commission because at that time the Commission was discussing goods, not services.


As a result of the present Bill that argument can no longer apply. We now have to engage in a study of the realities of the situation. I cannot help but feel that this is exemplified by the instructions sent out recently by the Secretary of the Draughts-men and Allied Technicians' Association which said:
Industrial militancy is the only measure whereby our members can protect and improve our living standards in the society in which we live. A successful strike should be followed up by more demands. More money should be followed by a demand for yet more money.
This is the reality of the situation and it must appear to outsiders and to the general public as a prescription for industrial anarchy.
What are the Government doing about it? What are the measures to be produced by the Prime Minister who in 1948 was President of the Board of Trade when we looked forward so much to what was promised? The whole of the Finance Bill has been based on the need to help the First Secretary to secure his incomes policy. The economy has been damaged to this effect quite deliberately, but what has been the result so far? Wage claims have been three times as large as the suggested norm. Whether it is intentional or not, the fact is that the exclusion of restrictive labour practices from the purview of the Commission will be interpreted by the trade unionists only as yet another concession, more danegeld to the privileged class, the new fourth estate of the Realm, the estate of the union ticket-holders. The Government will seem to these dissident people as operating a protection racket on a colossal scale only matched perhaps by that of the Mafia.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman pursues that fascinating theme any further and waxes even more eloquent, may I suggest that to bring balance to his statement he should bear in mind that every employers' association is by definition a trade union. The Galvanised Tank Manufacturers' Association owes its legal existence to the trade union Act under which it is registered. If the hon. Member deplores restrictive practices and if he brings these services within the purview of the Commission he must bring in all the restrictive practices operated by trade associations.

Mr. Hordem: I hope that all restrictive practices will be brought before the Commission. This has been my view all along. I am concerned with the effect which the Bill will have on the outlook of those who are unofficial leaders of strikes. They will feel that as a class they are being specifically exempted and those leaders of unofficial strikes who have no responsibility to their unions will only be heartened by this Measure. They are in every way the pimps of modern industrial society and they should be exposed as such. The Government should stand up for the Government's authority now.
It is no use Mr. Aubrey Jones saying on the National Board for Prices and Incomes that there will be methods of handling these matters, that we hope for voluntary restraint and that if we do not have voluntary restraint the Government will bring in some compulsory means. What is meant by "compulsory means"? He should not introduce those terms if he is to have any credence given to his beliefs. Either they are ineffective, in which case they are absolutely incredible, or else they will be completely intolerable as being against the liberty of the subject.
There will be those who will believe what their unofficial leaders tell them. These unofficial leaders will be strengthened by the Bill and in the long run the trade unionists will suffer because the only possible result and logical outcome of these activities will be serious unemployment. For that reason, if no other, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Captain Walter Elliot: I was not a member of the Standing Committee which spent considerable time on this complicated Measure. I have listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) and for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) and I confess to some confusion about the exact effects of the Clause and of the Amendment. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham to argue that organisations representing solicitors, stockbrokers and discount houses would come within the limits of the Clause but the activities of trade unions would not. As I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Reading speak, I realised how excellent was the Amendment.
My hon. Friend spoke, for example, about the comparatively small number of days lost in disputes in this country. This is perfectly true and is extremely welcome but would anyone deny that the reason why so few days have been lost is that on many occasions the trade unions have employed their monopoly powers to force a settlement? It may be a legitimate exercise of the rules by the trade unions to do this and hon. Members opposite would certainly claim that that was so. I go along with them to a certain extent and if the Amendment is accepted it will not be necessary presumably to refer every specific dispute to the Commission. That would be done only if it is considered important enough. That should be borne in mind.
Recently, and over past years, disputes of various kinds have arisen between employers and unions. If the disputes have not been settled round the table, on many occasions special courts of inquiry have been set up. One became rather cynical whenever this was done because, inevitably, some sort of settlement was arrived at which appeared to be not in the best interests of the nation. One reason for this is that the special committees or commissions of inquiry set up to investigate the situation were composed of people not particularly experienced in the matter in hand or, perhaps, in the sort of negotiations and investigations which were necessary, whereas on one side there were the trade unions led by capable and experienced negotiators who started off with a great advantage.
If the Amendment is accepted and matters of this kind can be referred to the Commission, which will have permanent members and co-opted members on it, there will be equal negotiating ability and experience on each side and, as a result, a much fairer answer will be arrived at.

Mr. Jay: First of all, I should explain to the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), who seems to be in some doubt about the scope of this provision, that the Bill as drafted would exclude the rendering of services under a contract of service—these are the operative words which hon. Members opposite wish to remove—and, therefore, whether we are concerned with a trade union or a

trade association is strictly irrelevant. What would be excluded would be the rendering of services under a contract of service. If I may presume to translate that legal language into something nearer plain English, what is meant is that the self-employed person is included while the employed person, as normally understood, is excluded from the scope of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), in moving the Amendment, said that the argument here was rather similar to the argument we have just had about the inclusion or exclusion of nationalised industries. I must tell him that the answer also is rather similar, whether he likes it or not. There is no dispute between us about the necessity of getting rid of at any rate a large number of restrictive practices on the labour side as well as in other sectors of industry. I fully agree that this is highly desirable, and it ought to be done by whatever method is most likely to achieve the result. The only difference between us is on whether we should be likely to achieve that result by bringing the ordinary labour restrictive practices within the authority of the Monopolies Commission.
We do not consider that we should be more likely to achieve it in that way, and here we are entirely in harmony with every Government since the war and every piece of legislation introduced into and passed by the House on monopolies or restrictive practices. We are also in harmony, I remind the hon. Gentleman, with the White Paper introduced by his Government only last year. I was a little surprised that he described this view as nonsense. If it is nonsense, it was also nonsense in the White Paper only a year ago.
The hon. Gentleman began by deploring the number of strikes which occur, while admitting that they are not, relative to other countries, perhaps, as numerous or excessive as some people may argue. I fully agree that if, by accepting the Amendment and bringing these practices within the scope of the Monopolies Commission, we could diminish the number of days lost in strikes this would be a very strong argument in favour of doing so; but I have the very greatest doubt that applying this sort of method to the labour restrictive practices which we


deplore we should in fact diminish the number of strikes which occur. I think it more likely that they would increase.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) virtually admitted this, a little illogically from his point of view, I thought, when he was arguing about the National Board for Incomes and Prices. He asked what was the good of the Board thinking that it would stop these practices by some form of compulsion. He said that that was incredible, unworkable, or something like that. If it is impossible to stop them by compulsion, it is no good bringing them under legislation of this kind and expecting a recommendation of the Monopolies Commission to be somehow enforced by the Board of Trade. Perhaps I did not understand the hon. Gentleman aright.

Mr. Hordern: The point I was making was that, if trade unionists were specifically exempted from the provisions of the Bill, they would gain the impression—this applies particularly to the most dissident of them—that they were in a class of their own. It is this that we should be most careful to avoid.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Jay: That is a slightly different argument, but it is also an argument against the White Paper and the other legislation previously introduced.
If we are really seeking to remove these restrictive practices, it must be remembered that one of the reasons why such practices exist is that in many parts of the country there has been a history of acute outright unemployment or underemployment over a long period of years. The hon. Member for Horsham spoke of 1948 and said that all these fears should have long ago disappeared. It so happens that in the shipbuilding areas, for instance, there have been two acute outbreaks of unemployment since 1948, one in 1959–60 and one in 1962–63. It is not surprising, therefore, that these practices continue obstinately to prevail.
However, when one has said that and argued that we should not be likely to get rid of these restrictive practices in this, the question may then be asked, what else can be done and what is being done by the Government now? Here, an answer can be given. First, as I have said

on other occasions, one important contribution is to bring fuller employment to these areas and industries than has been known in the past. That is the first step which is being successfully taken.
Second, as hon. Members know, it was part of the Declaration of Intent signed last winter not only by the Government but by representatives of industrialists and trade unionists that all sides pledged themselves, among other things, to make an attack on these sort of practices. Third, a Royal Commission is now sitting to investigate the whole subject of trade union and other practices and what can best be done, if necessary, to bring them into accord with the public interest.
Nevertheless, hon. Members may again say, "That is all very fine. Lots of people are thinking about it and lots of people have made declarations of intent, but what is actually being done?" Here, too, it can be claimed that we are making progress in several directions. I will give one instance about which hon. Members probably know. Only last month, John Brown reached agreement with the local branch of the Shipwrights and the Boilermakers Society on a scheme for interchangeability between platers and shipwrights. Restrictive practices in that sphere of industry have been some of the most subject to criticism in the past. This scheme provides, for instance, for a total of 500 platers and shipwrights to be employed on assembly, erection and so on, on the basis that either will do the other's work in the event of shortage. It may be said that this is only one arrangement for one section of industry. It is, I am informed in the industry, regarded by John Brown as a major break-through, and it is satisfactory to learn that other ship-building firms in other centres are now engaged in discussions with the representatives of their employees in the hope of making similar arrangements.
I should have thought that this was a much more hopeful way of getting rid of these practices, by agreement step by step, than by bringing them under the scope of the Monopolies Commission, with presumably the intention in the end that some compulsory action should be taken by the Government. I think we are beginning to make progress now. I fully agree that the attempts to do so have to be pushed forward vigorously, but I am


convinced that we shall be much more likely to succeed in this manner, by agreement and by tried methods, than by adopting a policy which would be entirely contrary to that which has been accepted by this House and by every Government up to now since 1945.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I had not been intending to be tempted into this short debate if it had not been for the fact that the President of the Board of Trade specifically linked this Amendment with the new Clause which I moved earlier and gave us somewhat obliquely the news that we were to have, as we now know, the same response to the Amendment as to the Clause.
I want to take up one or two points that the right hon. Gentleman made in order to try to persuade him even at this late hour that he is not advising the House to take the right decision. I want to make quite plain that I have always understood the reason which leads men, and, particularly, led men in the past, to combine together and to secure the strength which comes from that combination. I myself am quite unashamedly a member of an extremely strong trade union which, without any apology whatever, acts—extremely effectively I think—in the interests of its members and of the general public.
However, the interesting thing about it is that in certain of its aspects it comes within the ambit of this Bill, not in regard to certain important aspects of its remuneration, because they arise under orders made by this House and so they are exempted from the Bill, but if, for example, one takes a widely criticised demarcation, that between solicitors on the one hand and barristers on the other, which is very much in point at the moment because it is very much discussed, that, as I understand it, comes within the terms of the Bill. When he shortly returns to private practice the Minister without Portfolio may well be feeling on the Opposition benches the lash of legislation which he has helped to guide in a distinguished way through the Standing Committee and the House.
Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to see why the discriminations made between one type of association of persons working together, just because they are

self-employed, and another type as honourable and as desirable as the first, which is exempted from the provisions of the Bill—

Captain W. Elliot: I understood the President of the Board of Trade to tell me specifically that the self-employed person, as I imagine a solicitor considers himself to be, is outside the ambit of the Bill. Is that so, or is it not?

Mr. Jay: The self-employed person is within the ambit of the Bill. Anybody employed on a contract of service is outside it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am relieved to discover that I am not, on this occasion at any rate, talking nonsense. In short, what we are talking about are what are known at any rate in our profession as tame solicitors. What other types there are I do not know. The Minister without Portfolio hardly comes into it, but whatever he and I are, this is it.
A useful intervention was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern)—this is no criticism of his intervention—who made the same intervention in the Standing Committee. It was that we on this side of the House must appreciate that in putting forward this Amendment we are seeking to bring in not only the recognised trade unions as the ordinary person understands that phrase but also employers' associations and so on. On the previous occasion it was I who answered my hon. Friend. Like my hon. Friend, I accepted without question that that must apply. It would be a wholly untenable argument put forward from these benches or any other benches that only one type of trade union should be within the ambit of the Bill. Therefore, I think that that is perfectly clearly understood. As I understand it, that is clearly within the ambit of the drafting.
The President of the Board of Trade returned again to the argument that this has never been done or proposed before. I wish we could shake the Treasury Bench off its conservatism. The fact that it has never been done before is advanced as one of the legs of the argument for not doing it now. But we live in an age of change. We need a radical approach to many of these matters. Frankly, it will not be well received by many of those


who support hon. Members opposite, and, for the reason advanced by my hon. Friend tae Member for Horsham, by a number of persons who support hon. Members on this side of the House. Almost everyone prefers an undisturbed, quiet life. Almost everyone is in favour of competition so long as it is competition for the other person. Almost everyone pays lip service to this matter until it is applied to him. It must be made very clear that hon. Members on both sides are in part taking their political lives in their hands in proposing and, as would hope even at this stage, in accepting the Amendment.
I am very disappointed indeed by the reply that we have so far received. I dismiss without any question the mere fact that it has not been done before. I would tell the President of the Board of Trade that if this had been a discussion with a Conservative President of the Board of Trade, there would have been a number of us sitting behind that Conservative President nipping sharply at him and making life difficult for him had this provision not been in the Bill, and we should have had a number of contributions from Government backbenchers, with which we have not yet been honoured—at least not so far on this Bill. In fact, the Chamber is being used more as a rest centre than as a place for debate at the present time.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. I have been trying to restrain myself, but I have made at least five contributions to the debate, and I hope they have all been at the point at issue. I am not proposing to make any more under this kind of provocation.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Member is a very distinguished exception, but for evidence of what I am saying he should look behind him.
The second point is that there is a Commission on trade unions sitting at present. I believe that this will affect any Government, including the Conservative Government when we have one again in the near future. I believe that it will also be accepted increasingly by industry and the country that the results of the Royal Commission's inquiries must necessarily take far too long for what

the state of the nation demands. We really have not the time to wait and hear whether we do have a method of introducing the new powers proposed by the Amendment, which surely the Government might have found very effective.
8.0 p.m.
I am encouraged in that by a chink in the armour displayed by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that if he believed that the Amendment would diminish unofficial strikes he would gladly be in favour of it. I hope that I am fairly representing what he said. I want to take an analogy, that of the Prices and Incomes Board which has been so much in our discussions today, and consider what it is we are doing in bringing before that Board a number of those who may, prima facie, have unreasonably raised their prices.
Let us take the bread industry and the bakers, who are among those before the Board at the moment and in respect of whom I have no personal knowledge of any kind, which is why I choose them as an example. What must be clear from that industry is that the conditions which led to the price increase are under very close scrutiny by the industry itself. The increase is being very carefully looked at to make sure that it can be justified to the hilt. Here there is a paradox which is relevant to the Bill. It is a curious side-effect that, with the direct approval of the Prices and Incomes Board, the whole industry is getting together to think about that price increase. Thus, it is perhaps a paradox, and an interesting one, that the operations of the Prices and Incomes Board are actually tending to lead to monopolistic conditions, with the direct encouragement of the Board, at a time when we in this House are working our way through the Bill.
I put that—and I speak with some little knowledge of one of the industries concerned—as an interesting by-product of the situation. I am drawing the analogy because the power vested in the Board is not actually that of a sanction—at least, not yet. It has the power of public opinion attracted to these price increases. It will be extremely interesting to see how powerful the impact of public opinion is upon these proposed price increases when they are reported on one after the other


by the Board. I cannot pursue that further because it would be out of order, but the analogy is fair.
As I sought to argue upstairs, I believe that the Government seriously under-estimate the sense of irritation that there is on so many shop floors at the restricted practices which the trade union structure forces them to carry out. Particularly is this so in the younger industries, from which my experience is mostly drawn, since my constituency is very typical of the centres of the younger industries.
The men on the shop floor today have had the enormous advantage under successive Governments of an infinitely better education than their fathers ever had. They have the advantage of an infinitely wider understanding and knowledge of the nation's economic problems than their fathers ever had the chance of having. The young men of today—and large numbers are doing a highly skilled job—are men to whom these restrictive practices are things which fill them with contempt.
Of course, I know the correct answer, what is called the "D.S." solution. The correct answer is that they should attend branch meetings of their unions, exercise their democratic rights and, in concert with management, get rid of these restrictive practices—and I know of no good employer who does not welcome good trade union organisation although I know of one or two thoroughly bad employers who attempt to suppress trade unions, to their great discredit. As I have said, that solution is the correct one according to the book but in practice it does not happen.
The men concerned want the strength behind them of public opinion as channelled by this House. That is what is necessary. On the shop floor of industry are men of the highest calibre and highest character, men who regard a wild-cat strike as utterly foreign to their outlook and sense of responsibility to the nation. Yet they find themselves enmeshed in this old-fashioned structure which so badly needs bringing up to date and they desperately need the strength of public opinion. That is the case. It is not an unreasoned case. It is not to be dismissed lightly by reference to what may have happened in the past or to what may

or may not have been done by previous Governments.
If it helps the right hon. Gentleman, I will say from these back benches, with no kind of responsibility—nor did I have in the past—that this was one of the omissions of the 13 years of Conservative administration. Since I am not such an avid party politician that I believe or proclaim to believe that every single thing the Conservative Government did was right or that they never left anything undone, I concede this point with frankness. That is why I am so anxious to play my part in order to make certain that, if not this Government, then at least some subsequent Government will put the matter right.

Mr. John Harvey: I pay my own tribute to the principles of trade unionism. I have been a member of two trade unions, both of which have always approached their tasks with responsibility and have furthered the interests of their membership in a right and proper manner. But when the President of the Board of Trade suggests that this was not a point ever taken before by this side of the House—that it had not appeared in the White Paper last year—I must re-echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said in suggesting that we must get away from thinking, that, because a thing has not been done in the past, that is a good reason for not doing it now.
One can obviously see that progress is being made in improving relationships as between unions and industries of different kinds. One can see this applying, for instance, in the shipbuilding industry. But while these improvements are being made, and while many of us say that this is something best left to the normal processes of negotiations, one hopes that such irresponsibility as exists here and there in the trade union movement will gradually give way to some sense of responsibility as some of the old fears are seen to have gone.
Nevertheless, the fact is that it is not agreement between trade unions and industry that makes the headlines. It is irresponsibility of the sort that we saw again at London Airport at Whitsun. I say "again" because this is what tends so often to happen at Bank Holidays.


This is the sort of thing that makes the headlines. This makes the public ask what the Government are doing about the constant inconvenience to which the travelling public are put and the way in which the travelling public or the consuming public are so often held to ransom.
For us to be debating a Bill which, quite rightly, will make it possible for the affairs of far more people than ever before to be scrutinised with a view to seeing whether they are serving the public interest, while at the same time saying that trade unions must be exempt and still must be dealt with in some other way, will not strike many people outside the House as being fair. It is tremendously in the interests of the trade unions themselves that the Government should take this point and reconsider the validity of our arguments.

Mr. Dan Jones: I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree that a distinction should be made between trade unions and trade unionists. He is confusing the two and I invite him to make the distinction clear.

Mr. Harvey: One of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends pointed out that trade associations were trade unions and that in asking for an investigation to be made into these matters, we must widen the issue. We have said that we would welcome that and we would. I do not see how one can differentiate as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. John Hall: One interesting thing about the debate has been that the majority of speakers from this side of the House have themselves been or still are trade unionists. Everyone who has heard it will agree that it has been a most important debate distinguished by some extraordinarily thoughtful, measured and reasoned speeches. I am only sorry—and I say this quite genuinely—that there are not more people in the Chamber to take part and that we have not had a contribution from the other side of the House. I appreciate the difficulties in which the Government find themselves when they have a very long night's work before them. They are reluctant to encourage their own Members to contribute to a debate and this may be one of the occasions when the Whips are on and are telling Government

Members to keep out of the Chamber and not to come in and keep the debate going, because the Government want to bring it to an end. I understand how these things work, but it is nevertheless a pity that we should have such a situation with this debate.

Mr. John Harvey: Will my hon. Friend agree that even if the Whips are on hon. Members opposite in this sense, there is nothing to stop the Liberal Party, which always says that it attaches a great deal of importance to this matter, from being present in force and that its members have been absent for a very long time?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hall: That is perfectly true, but I must confess that I had hardly noticed their absence.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) was understandably puzzled that, although a great variety of services, including the professions, should be subject to the Clause, employees with contracts of service were not. I understand his bewilderment, because it is rather odd that those people should be excluded from the Clause.
In a fairly brief reply to the Amendment, ably and cogently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), the President of the Board of Trade repeated the arguments which we heard in Standing Committee and which, briefly, were that what the Government were now doing or not doing was in harmony with what other Governments had done in the past and on the lines followed in the past. We also had what is now becoming the chestnut—the reference to last year's White Paper and the fact that it did not mention any intention to introduce in a Bill of this kind measures which would bring trade unions within the purview of such legislation.
I thought that it was one of the main arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite that they had come to power because of the sins of omission as well as the sins of commission by the Government which held office for the previous 13 years. It was said that they were to do things which had not been done in the past. Apparently, they are now saying that because they were not done by us they will not do anything


either. If they are not to do any of the things which we did not do, why have they come to power? Let us sit over there to do something effective. This argument of hon. Members opposite is extraordinary.
The second argument is that there is a Royal Commission. We know that a Royal Commission has been appointed, but we also know—and this is no disrespect to any Royal Commission—that Royal Commissions take a certain time to examine and report and there is a great tendency to bury the reports of Royal Commissions in the archives of Whitehall. Eventually, years and years later, someone takes one out and dusts it down and decides that perhaps something might be done about it.
All parties and all Governmens suffer from this defect. Royal Commissions are one of the most famous ways of burying a subject which is embarrassing and with which it is difficult to deal. I hope that this Royal Commission will be an exception, but the Royal Commission argument is not an argument against including powers in a Bill so that the Government can use them if they desire. They do not have to use the powers, but the powers would be there if the Government wanted to use them.
The right hon. Gentleman sought to show what magnificent progress was being made in industrial relations by using other methods of free negotiation between employer and employee, and he quoted the example of John Brown's, saying that an agreement had been reached between the platers and the shipwrights. He said that this was only one agreement in one industry. But it is only one of many in that industry and there is a long way to go before there is a solution of the demarcation problems and the restrictive practices which have grown up in the shipbuilding industry over many years, for reasons which we quite understand, but which will have to be eradicated if the industry is to be as efficient as some of its competitors. It is a little too hopeful to believe that the normal processes of negotiation over a long time will have the effect which is wanted as quickly as possible.
In a debate on this subject in Committee, the Minister of State said:

In saying that, I must again express the view we hold on this side of the Committee, that the modernisation of industry is now such an urgent necessity in this country that restrictive practices, either by employers or trade unionists and workers generally, can no longer be tolerated".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th April, 1965; c. 179.]
In saying that, he was echoing words of the Prime Minister in another guise, words quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) in a very thoughtful speech.
They are strong words; they are good words; why cannot we have them translated into some sort of action? We have made it clear that we believe that restrictive practices, wherever they are, whether on the part of employer or employee, are bad for the country and should be brought under scrutiny. If they can be shown to be against the public interest, and here I direct my remarks for one moment in the direction of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), if it can be shown that trade associations are guilty of restrictive practices contrary to the public interest, then they should be forced to give them up. We are quite willing to accept this.
The other argument used by the Government in Committee was that it was said that even if reference was made to the Monopolies Commission and certain practices were found to be contrary to the public interest, the President of the Board of Trade could do nothing about it. I am paraphrasing the words of the Minister without Portfolio in Committee as reported in column 199 on 29th April. Is the House seriously to understand that if some trade union was referred to the Monopolies Commission under Clause 2 and was found to be guilty of practices which were against the public interest those concerned could defy not only the Board of Trade but the court which could be asked to give an order requiring the trade union to carry out the directions of the Board of Trade? Have we reached a situation in this country where—despite the law of the land and an order of the court—trade unions can now defy the law? Is that why it was said that even if trade unions were referred to the Monopolies Commission it would not be effective because the President of the Board of Trade could do nothing about it? I do not believe this.
If this Amendment was accepted, and it was possible to bring all services within the purview of the Monopolies Commission, as they should be, and if it was found on examination that some practices were against the public interest, I doubt very much whether those concerned would be prepared to defy not only Parliament but the courts. I cannot therefore understand the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman and the arguments he has put forward against this Amendment.
To sum up again, those arguments are merely that it has not been done before and now that a Royal Commission is examining the whole trade union movement it is not necessary, according to the Minister to write powers into a Bill now before the House to enable him if he wished to, to deal with practices which

are particularly undesirable in our industrial history. If the Government mean what they say and really want to remove restrictive practices wherevver they are and make industry really competitive, if restrictive practices wherever they are constantly saying they want to do, to make it possible for us to increase our exports by being more competitive overseas, and if they want to get our industrial practices modernised and in line with our major industrial competitors, then they will accept this Amendment. If they are not prepared to do that, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 167.

Division No. 211.]
AYES
[8.23 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fisher, Nigel
Mitchell, David


Baker, W. H. K.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
More, Jasper


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Gardner, Edward
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony
page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Berkeley, Humphry
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Pym, Francis


Box, Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Higgins, Terence L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sharples, Richard


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hopkins, Alan
Shepherd, William


Buxton, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Stainton, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cole, Norman
Kilfedder, James A.
Thomas, sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Litchfield, Capt. John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Walters, Dennis


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Ward, Dame Irene


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Loveys, Walter H.
Webster, David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Dean, Paul
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Whitelaw, William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley
Wise, A. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maitland, Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray



Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Emery, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Ian MacArthur and


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Mr. Dudley Smith.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Orbach, Maurice


Alldritt, Walter
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Owen, Will


Barnett, Joel
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Blackburn, F.
Hooson, H. E.
Parker, John


Boston, T. G.
Horner, John
Parkin, B. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pentland, Norman


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Boyden, James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Popplewell, Ernest


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin
Rose, Paul B.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rowland, Christopher


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Sheldon, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Darling, George
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Dodds, Norman
Leadbitter, Ted
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Donnelly, Desmond
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stones, William


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Swain, Thomas


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, J.
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James
Tuck, Raphael


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
McLeavy, Frank
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Molloy, William
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilkins, W. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Albert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Newens, Stan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hannan, William
Norwood, Christopher
Zilliacus, K.


Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Ifor Davies and


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Mr. William Howie.

Clause 3.—(POWERS OF BOARD OF TRADE IN RELATION TO MONOPOLY SITUATIONS.)

Sir Eric Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 11, after "Act" to insert:
as amended by the next following subsection
I hope that it will be convenient to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 14—page 4, line 15, leave out from "Parliament" to first "operate" in line 17. Amendment No. 19—page 4, line 33, at end insert:
() Section 10(1)(e)(ii) of the principal Act (which enables orders under section 16 to be made on the authority of a resolution of

the Commons House of Parliament) shall cease to have effect.
Amendment No. 48—Clause 6, page 11, line 39, leave out "either". Amendment No. 49—Clause 6, page 11, line 44, leave out from "interest" to end of line 4 on page 12, and Amendment No. 83—Schedule 2, page 26, line 7, column 3, leave out "Section 10(2)" and insert:
In section 10, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), the word 'either' and the words from 'or (ii) not earlier than' to the end of the paragraph; and subsections (2)".
The House will be aware that when the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, was passed, Section 10 provided that the


powers thereby given to the Board of Trade could be exercised in two events: either in the event of the Commission's making a report that certain things were being done by the parties concerned as a result of which the public interest was being injured; or if Parliament passed a Resolution to similar effect. That provision was not changed when the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission Act, 1953, was passed. When the Bill was introduced, it was thought appropriate not to take away the power of this House. Indeed, it was believed a natural corollary that the House should be asked to assert the same powers on mergers.
In Committee, as the result of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), we had a debate about this matter. During that debate, I indicated that I was in favour of the Amendment provided that it were acceptable to the House of Commons. In our earlier debates, we have heard something about the relationship between the Executive and the House of Commons. I took the view that it would be inappropriate for the Executive to take the initiative in asking the House to deprive itself of powers given to it by an Act of Parliament.
At the same time, it does not seem to me to be appropriate that after the Monopolies Commission has made a report which, in effect, exonerates a certain industry, there should be a review after a minimum interval of three months by the House of Commons. That would be particularly unfortunate in the case of a merger, because where a merger is concerned it is obviously important that those concerned should know without delay where they stand and should not have to run the gauntlet of seeing whether the House of Commons passes a resolution after an interval of three months.
There is, moreover, the fact that experience has shown that since 1948 the House of Commons has not thought it convenient or desirable to pass any resolution of the kind contemplated in the 1948 Act. Therefore, it would not be doing too much violence to our constitutional arrangements if we now ask the House by a self-denying ordinance to agree to deprive itself of the powers which it has enjoyed since 1948. That is the effect of the Amendments.

Mr. Channon: I should like to say how astonishing it is to us on this side that after a debate in which they heard nothing of the argument the whole of the Liberal Party should have gone into the Lobby to vote against the possibility of the trade unions even being referred to the Monopolies Commission. I hope that this fact will be noted outside.
I thank the Minister without Portfolio for moving the Amendment. When we considered the matter in Committee it was the general view that these provisions under Section 10 (1,e,ii) of the 1948 Act had not proved to be needed and had never been used throughout the seventeen years during which that legislation had been in force. It was a curious provision of the 1948 Act that in certain circumstances, without an adverse report of the Commission having been made, the House of Commons might have been invited to declare certain practices to be against the public interest.
I have been refreshing my memory by reading the interesting debates which took place in Standing Committee on this topic on 15th June, 1948. The Minister without Portfolio was a distinguished member of that Committee. I have already drawn his attention to the fact that for some extraordinary reason he did not speak in those debates. I am sure that had he done so, he would have spoken words of great common sense. It is a curious thing that although during that debate the Conservative Opposition had to press this matter to a Division, this is one of the few examples we have so far had in the past nine months of the Government reversing a decision which their party took at that time when it was in Government before. We argued against, and now we have been proved right. However, I do not think we want to make this a great party point.
One of the interesting things about that debate was the prophetic words of Mr. John Freeman, now the High Commissioner in India. Replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), who asked how often he thought these powers would be used, he replied "Very seldom". How right he was, because after 17 years those powers have yet to be used at all.
I had thought of asking the Minister without Portfolio why it was not possible


to accept the Amendments in Committee. I thought we had drafted an admirable Amendment to cover this point. Looking back to the Committee, it would be fair to say that the Amendments we then had down were precisely the same as the Amendments the House is now being invited to consider except for one very important difference. By oversight, my hon. Friends failed to omit, when we were omitting other things, the word "either". I think that if at that time we had proposed to omit that word our Amendments would have been absolutely correct and we should not have had to take up the time of the House now.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who has been a very regular attender throughout our debates, in Committee and again today, when he has been one of only two hon. Members on the back benches opposite who have taken the trouble to intervene in these debates, is not able to be here at the moment, because he was the only person in Committee who expressed doubts whether it would be wise for the House to remove these powers and whether or not the occasion might arise when it would be necessary for the House of Commons to have these additional powers. I do not think he was wholly convinced by me or by the more powerful arguments adduced by the Minister without Portfolio on that occasion, and I thought that perhaps he might have been going to raise the subject now; but perhaps in the interim he has been convinced of the wisdom of these arguments.
It seems to me that the conclusive thing about this small point was said by Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, as he then was, on 15th June, 1948, when he said that, if we wish to investigate a matter,
It is quite wrong to set up a body to do so and give that Commission very large powers for hearing evidence and then, when that expert body has concluded that the public interest is not being damaged, ad hoc on this particular matter to get the House of Commons to set it aside. That is quite the wrong way to legislate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th June, 1945; c. 899–900.]
I think that Lord Chandos was quite right on that occasion, and I am glad the Government are taking back those powers after 17 years. It is not a party point, because the Conservative Party had an

opportunity also, when passing monopolies legislation, to reverse this, but did not take the opportunity.
I do not think circumstances are at all likely in which it would be necessary for the House of Commons to have these additional powers. Frankly, I think they are very dangerous powers for the House to have, and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to this Amendment. Perhaps even the Liberal Party, now that it has ventured to join the debate, will agree to the House taking away these powers, which have been in existence for 17 years but which have never been exercised. I do not think any hon. Member need fear that the House of Commons will be in any way weakened by this. In my opinion it will be the Executive, if anybody, who will be slightly weakened. The House need to feel that it is losing anything which might be useful to it in any possible circumstances.
We on this side would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for having given that assurance to the Committee and for having now brought forward this Amendment on Report.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I was asked why the Amendments were not accepted in Committee. The reason was that drafting points were involved and although, as the hon. Gentleman said, some of the Amendments that we are discussing with this one are in the same form as was proposed by him in Committee, this particular Amendment was not tabled then.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 15 leave out from "Parliament" to first "operate" in line 17.

In line 33 at end insert:
() Section 10 (1) (e) (ii) of the principal Act (which enables orders under section 10 to be made on the authority of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament) shall cease to have effect.—[Sir Eric Fletcher.]

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, Amendment No. 20, in page 6, line 6, at the end to insert:
but the Board shall not, in relation to goods or services of any class to which the report relates, exercise the power conferred by virtue of paragraph (c) above unless it appears to the Board on the facts found by the Commission as stated in the report that prices charged in the case of goods or services of that class


are, or have been, such as to operate, or to be expected to operate, against the public interest".
The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the circumstances in which the Government may make an order to regulate prices under subsection (3, c). We put down the Amendment to carry out an undertaking given in Committee that the Government would consider whether the price control provisions could be so amended as to meet the concern that was expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite who felt that the Bill as drafted would enable Governments—not just the present one, but perhaps successive Government, too—to make Monopoly Commission Reports a pretext for price control, even if this was quite relevant to the Commission's actual findings.
I think that the words we have proposed carry out the undertaking that was given. They mean that we have put into the Bill in legal form the undertaking that the Government will not use this power improperly, and that any proposal made by the Government to have price supervision or price regulation can be exercised only where it is a proper remedy for a situation that is revealed by an adverse report by the Commission.

Mr. Peter Emery: I thank the Government for going as far as they have done in this Amendment and for carrying out at least part of the undertaking which they gave in Committee. This problem exercised the Committee to a considerable extent, and a lot of concern was expressed about it, because, as originally drafted, the Bill gave power to control prices in a very much wider form than had been envisaged by anybody who had dealt with monopolies, and in a way which could have been used improperly by the Government, if they had an ulterior motive or desire, when a specific industry had been referred to the Monopolies Commission.
It is true that the Amendment meets some o' the points that we made. It is true that there can be no price fixing by the Government unless there has been an adverse decision of the Board, and, as stated in the Amendment,
that prices charged in the case of goods or services of that class are, … against the public interest.

I am a little worried about the phrase,
or to be expected to operate
and I would very much like to know what the Minister has in mind by including that phrase. I find it a little strange that the Monopolies Commission would come to this sort of decision on a hypothetical situation on which you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would never rule. It would be very much better for the Commission to follow your example and not to rule on a hypothetical expectation. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that this phrase is necessary?
We are still very much concerned about the way in which this price control would be carried out if it were ever necessary to use these powers. Industry is concerned about it, for the Board is given power to fix a company's prices apparently indefinitely. Is this what the Government intend? Do they not envisage a time limit to the price fixing? Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect a company to continue in business if for any length of time the basis of its whole pricing policy has to be submitted to the Board of Trade? That is an attitude towards prices which cannot bring the kind of competition which we feel so necessary for the modernisation of industry.
The Amendment does not meet another point which I put—that in the fixing of prices it is not enough to refer to the publication of a list. Does the Minister envisage the publication of one list? Most industries and businesses operate on a number of prices. Some have a single fixed price, but many have a variable price scale dependent, for example, on quantity.
These points were made in Committee, and the Minister made favourable noises and gave an undertaking which he is fulfilling. But he gave no direct answer to my question, and in meeting the undertaking he has gone only part of the way. It is important that industry should be informed of what is in the Government's mind. How will the power operate, for how long, to what extent, and in what manner? If industry does not know these things, then it does not know what may be involved. It is the Government's duty to state the position quite clearly. This is the only place on Report to do so, because it is tied up with the Amendment.
If we are given favourable answers by the Minister to my questions, we shall not want to do other than welcome the Amendment. The Minister may say that it is impossible to outline in the Bill an exact answer to my questions because a variable factor is involved. It might be a useful addition as a Schedule listing the methods of operation which the Government intend to use if they decide to take action under the Amendment. We are very concerned about the matter, and I ask the Minister, not only for my sake but for the sake of a considerable part of industry, to answer the questions which I have put to him.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This concession does not go all the way. What we wished, as I understand it, was that the Board should not have the power to fix prices unless the Commission so recommended it—that is to say, unless the Commission were satisfied that there was no other way of dealing with the market domination—and only then should the Board of Trade be empowered to fix prices. This is a power of last resort. As I understand it, all that has happened now by this Amendment is that the Board is to retain the power to fix prices, even though the Commission does not so recommend. The Commission may find that the prices charged have been operating or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, but may in fact recommend quite a different remedy and propose a divesting decree or a hiving off operation, or something quite different, and yet, even though the Commission has done that the Board of Trade can ignore that remedy and propose the remedy of price fixing.
This does not go as far as we would like. We would like the Board's power to depend upon a recommendation of price fixing by the Commission. I do not rule out the possibility that the Commission may so recommend, and in some cases I believe it has so recommended. However, it is a matter of last resort. I do not believe either side of the House wants to see a monoply so frozen that the power of price fixing is all that can be done, and it seems to me that in such an extreme and absolute situation it should be done only when the Commission finds there is no other way. However, as this Amendment stands, the Board of Trade is entitled to take that extreme view, even though

the Commission has recommended some other remedy. This goes, not half-way but only a quarter of the way and, although it is better than nothing, it is not very much.

Mr. Darling: In regard to the point of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about these additional words to the Bill not going as far as he would wish, it is perhaps a hypothetical situation: but the point we had in mind is where the Commission reports adversely about price fixing arrangements by the industry that it has examined, but leaves it to the Board of Trade to find the remedy. This may not happen. What we have tried to cover is that circumstance which may arise.

Mr. Peter Emery: It would be most helpful if the Minister of State could clear up this point. Is he saying that on the whole the Board of Trade would not use its pricing control powers unless in its adverse report the Monopolies Commission had referred to the pricing section? It would be quite possible to have an adverse report from the Monopolies Commission without a reference on prices, and therefore the Board of Trade would only operate if there was a mention of the pricing position.

Mr. Darling: I am sure that would be the situation. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) will see the words
unless it appears to the Board on the facts found by the Commission as stated in the report that prices charged …
It is perfectly clear from that that it is an adverse report on prices which is referred to. Now that these words are to be put into the Bill, it is only in these circumstances that the Board of Trade would act. There is the slightly hypothetical case where the Commission does not recommend the remedy but where, the Commission having made this kind of adverse report, the remedy must be found by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It also covers, on its wording, a state of affairs where the Commission has made an adverse report on prices but has also recommended a remedy other than price fixing.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Darling: Yes, but it has been implicit in monopolies legislation since 1948


that the action to be taken to remedy the mischiefs which have been found by the Commission must be approved by the Board of Trade. In this case, because Orders must be laid, it must be approved by Parliament. This gives an opportunity, after hon. Members have read the report of the Commission, to decide whether the Government are taking the right action. This is the situation. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree on reflection that we had to cover all the circumstances which might arise from an adverse report by the Commission.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) asked whether the power to control or regulate prices or to ask that price lists be issued will be exercised for all time. As subsection (1) clearly states, the purpose of the control is to remedy mischiefs which have come to light as a result of the Commission's recommendations. On studying past reports from the Commission, we realised that some action might have to be taken in the future on prices, if past experience was any guide. As soon as the mischiefs have disappeared—if other arrangements can be made; if there is some divesting of monopoly power to get greater competition in the industry; whatever may happen which renders it necessary that the powers should be put on one side—it is a duty on the Board of Trade in practice, whether it is written into the Measure or not, to bring the powers which it has taken to an end, because the circumstances in which the powers needed to be exercised have also come to an end. Obviously this must be left to the Board of Trade and to Parliament's review of Orders and Statutory Instruments of the Board of Trade.
On this question how the Government will exercise these powers subsection (3) says this:
The Board may—
(b) require a person supplying goods or services to publish a list of or otherwise notify prices with or without such further information as may be so specified or described;
(c) regulate to such extent and in such circumstances as may be provided by or under the order the prices to be charged for any goods or services so specified or described.
We gave a great deal of thought to those words, in the light of reports of the

Monopolies Commission. It is difficult—in fact, impossible—to answer the hon. Member's request to specify in detail the action which will be taken by the Government on an adverse report by the Commission. Each adverse report has to be taken on its merits. We must see what the report says. We must see if the Commission has any recommendations to offer. In the absence of specific recommendations, we must see what is the best course to be taken by the Board of Trade in presenting an order for Parliamentary approval. It is impossible to specify in detail the action which will be proposed by the Board of Trade until we see the reports from the Commission. There may be very few indeed in which price control is requested directly by the Commission, or where the outcome of the report calls for these controls. I think the cases will be very few and will be very difficult to specify.

Mr. John Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether it would be possible under this legislation for the Board of Trade to lay down the prices charged by a particular industry and to say that that industry shall not be entitled to increase the prices of that range of goods without the authority of the Board of Trade? I believe this is the practice under the French system.

Mr. Darling: I think it would be possible, but obviously if the Board of Trade is going to act on the Monopoly Commission's Report we have got to wait until we have seen the Report before we can answer a question like that. It depends upon what the Report indicates, or suggests, or recommends. But offhand, I would say that the answer to the question is "Yes".

Mr. Hall-Davis: As I am sure the Minister of State will remember, I spoke at considerable length in Standing Committee. Therefore, I do not wish to detain the House this evening. However, I should like to emphasise a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about this being an action of last resort.
This Amendment has gone half way towards meeting what was said in Committee. It was said that this was certainly the least acceptable remedy in cases


where mischief is occurring. What disturbs us is that there is no responsibility laid on the Board of Trade not to allow this state of affairs to continue indefinitely as an acceptable solution. We would all be happier if there were some reference to the fact that this action should be taken pending other and more acceptable solutions.
While the Amendment accepts the argument put forward in Committee that price regulation is, on the whole, an unsatisfactory state of affairs in a mixed economy, it does not suggest that it is incumbent upon the Board of Trade actively to pursue means of creating circumstances in which it can be terminated. I would feel much happier if something could be written into the Bill, possibly in another place, making it clear that not only should this course be adopted only after a recommendation by the Commission, but that it should be adopted preferably as an interim measure and that every attempt should be made to take some other step so that this does not become a permanent situation. It is very easy, through inertia, for this situation to continue.

Mr. Darling: To answer the point briefly, we considered this matter very fully indeed and, frankly, we could not find any way within the terms of the Bill of laying an obligation on the Board of Trade within a certain period of time to bring to an end the price fixing control, which is a control of last resort.
If the hon. Member will look at past Reports of the Monopolies Commission where the prices issue was raised, he will find that the prices issue was not raised in isolation from other remedies and suggestions. I would think that in practice other remedies would be associated with this. If that is so, the price control would operate only as long as the prices mischief continued.
I agree that this is rather a negative way of doing things, and if it could be an interim measure so much the better. But I think the hon. Gentleman will find in practice that the prices proposals or recommendations or adverse reports, whatever it may be, are not isolated. They are usually associated with other remedies as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The next Amendment is No. 21, in page 6, line 15, after "may", insert "by order", and we can discuss with it Amendment No. 22, in line 15, leave out "provide" and insert "prepare a scheme", Amendment No. 24, in line 31, leave out "for all such" and insert:
whenever the Board shall so provide, the Board shall publish a scheme making provision for such of the following".
Amendment No. 25, in line 22, leave out "including" and insert "namely", and Amendment No. 72,

SCHEDULE

PROCEDURE CONSEQUENT UPON AN ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR THE DIVISION OF ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS.

1. Every such scheme as is mentioned in subsection (5) of section 3 of this Act shall be subject to the sanctions of the Companies Court (in this Schedule called "the Court") and shall not take effect unless and until sanctioned by the Court and then only subject to any modifications or conditions which the Court may approve or impose.

2. Every application to the Court shall be made at the cost of the Board and in accordance with rules determined by the Board by statutory instrument.

3. Notice of every such scheme shall be served on every person whose rights are affected by the scheme, including (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) any company mentioned therein and the shareholders and creditors of any such company.

4. Such notice shall be accompanied by a print of the scheme together with an explanatory statement showing the effect of the scheme and shall state the date, time and place when and where the Court is to hear the petition for approving the scheme.

5. The company and any other person whose rights are affected may appear at the hearing of the petition to support, oppose or propose modifications to the scheme or conditions to be imposed by the Court and may present evidence to the Court in such form as the Court shall direct. The costs of any company or person so appearing shall be at the discretion of the Court.

6. The Court shall not sanction any scheme unless it is satisfied—

(i) that it contains proper provisions, whether of any nature specified in subsection (5) of this section or otherwise as the Court shall think fit, to safeguard rights of companies and persons affected by the said scheme, including shareholders, creditors, landlords, employees, suppliers and customers and, in so far as any such rights are interfered with, altered or abrogated, to compensate therefor, and
(ii) that the scheme is fair.

7. Nothing in any order made under subsection (5) of section 3 of this Act or in any


scheme published under that subsection and confirmed with or without modifications or conditions under this schedule shall have the effect of subjecting any person to the payment of any tax of any nature whatsoever or of any stamp duty which would not have been payable if such order had not been made or such scheme had not been published and confirmed.

and the two Amendments to Amendment No. 31.

Sir Eric Fletcher: In dealing with the Amendments to Amendment No. 31, I imagine that it would be necessary to refer to Amendment No. 31.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would say. If Amendment No. 21 falls the Amendments to Amendment No. 31 fall and therefore they should be discussed now.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 15, after "may", to insert "by order".
The Minister of State was unwise enough to say earlier that he had not heard as much from me on Report as he had heard in Committee. I hastened to assure him that I would be on my feet and thereupon he hurried out of the Chamber, but he has now returned. I have become a creature of nocturnal habits recently and I find that I produce the most effective results during the hours of darkness, and as the sun is now setting I rise to my feet.
The Amendment deals with the problem of the machinery of divesting. I use the word "divesting" to cover all those powers which the Board of Trade is taking in subsection (5) to break up a monopoly if those powers appear to be the right remedy in relation to the facts found by the Commission. I was glad to hear reiterated the view from the Government that on the whole the divesting procedure will be preferable, where it is possible, to the price control procedure; but it is important that the divesting procedure should be, as I told the Committee, not only effective but fair. To quote briefly from a speech made in the Committee:
The fundamental fact upon which everyone is agreed is that the Government must have the right to decide whether a divestment shall take place. What is in question is to ensure that the arrangements by which the divestment takes place shall be seen to be fair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th May, 1965, c. 301.]

That is a speech which the Minister without Portfolio will recognise came not from this side but from his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) and it states succinctly exactly what this Amendment tries to achieve.
It will be remembered that in Committee I moved two Amendments to deal with these points which were in the alternative. One was to adopt the procedure of Section 206 of the Companies Act, 1948, and to invoke the Companies Court as the machinery whereby the divesting should take place. The other was to set up a special tribunal along the lines of the tribunal set up under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, to apportion compensation paid under that Act. In the event, the opinion, at any rate on this side, seemed to favour the use of the Companies Court and this is what the Amendment seeks to do.
In reply to a long and useful debate in Committee on this subject the Minister without Portfolio indicated the Government's thinking, which will require an Amendment to the Bill and we shall he coming to that Amendment later tonight. Although, as the Minister recognised in his brief intervention a moment ago, I shall have to refer to one or two points in the Government's Amendment they are alternative to the Amendment which we are now seeking to put forward.
9.15 p.m.
The short point is that it must be for the Government to decide, having received a Report from the Monopolies Commission, that an order should be made for splitting up a monopoly, that a divesting order should be made. The question is: how should that order be implemented? As was recognised on both sides of the Committee, very difficult and complex problems arise, involving the rights of, perhaps, a large number of parties, some of them members of the companies, some of them employees, some of them creditors, some of them persons with whom contracts have been made, and so on. A large number of rights have to be dealt with, and the purpose of the Amendment is to establish a procedure whereby these complex questions can be settled in a way which is fair to all the parties concerned and which is manifestly seen to be fair.
We propose adopting the procedure under Section 206 of the Companies Act whereby schemes of arrangement affecting the rights of participants in companies can be brought before the court and the court, if satisfied that they are fair and equitable, may sanction them. We felt that there was a sufficient degree of similarity between the schemes which often come before the Companies Court under Section 206 and the orders which would have to be made by the Board of Trade under this legislation to justify the use of that procedure or something akin to it in this case.
The advantages, briefly, are these. The judge in the Companies Court is someone who stands right apart from the parties. He is clearly impartial. He is in a position not to be concerned with the political question, which is bound to arise, of whether an order should be made, the broad lines on which it should be made, what should be divested, how the company should be split up, and so on. He will be in a position to adjust the rights and powers of all the parties so as effectively to carry into operation the order which the Board of Trade will have made, and at the same time, to do justice to all concerned.
The suggestion made by the Minister without Portfolio in Committee, which is embodied in the Government Amendment, does not use the Companies Court and it does not use an independent tribunal. It treats the whole question as an administrative one, and the matter is to be decided by the Board of Trade, although, I hasten to add, the Minister without Portfolio went on to say that he would envisage that, in certain circumstances, it might be right for the Department to employ the services of an expert in this subject, a member of the companies Bar or, perhaps, a senior accountant, who could be employed to advise the Department on the best method of carrying its intentions into effect. But, basically, the difference between the two sides of the House on this issue is that we favour a more formal procedure using the courts whereas the Government favour the more administrative procedure within the Board of Trade.
In reply to the Amendment which I moved in Committee, the Minister without Portfolio—I hope that I am not misleading the House or distorting his attitude—made five objections which he regarded as the major objections to our proposal. First, he said that the procedure under Section 206 of the Companies Act was not really analogous to the requirements under Clause 3(5); the two situations were really different in kind and, for that reason, it would not be right to import the Companies Act procedure for use in these circumstances.
Obviously, the situations are not exactly the same. Under the Companies Act, for the most part, schemes of arrangement are brought forward by the companies or by participants in the companies themselves, whereas under this legislation the schemes would need to be promoted by the Board of Trade in implementation of a decision to carry out the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission. To that extent there is a difference.
On the other hand, the nature of the operations that will have to be carried out dealing with the rights—this is the matter which engaged the attention of the Committee; it involves, to some extent, the right of debenture holders who have a floating charge on the assets of the company, the problem of dealing with different classes of shareholders who may have different rights either when the company is in operation or when it winds up, the problem of dealing with creditors who may have money secured on the assets of the company, the problem of dealing with people with contracts, employees and so on—these are all very similar to the problems which the Companies Court deals with under Section 206.
Therefore, if one looks at how the matter reaches the court, there is a difference. If one looks at the matters with which the court would be expected to deal, I suggest that they are very similar and that the judge in the Companies Court would find himself on very familiar ground. Therefore, I cannot accept the first objection which the Minister without Portfolio made to the suggestion.
The Minister's second point was one with which one is familiar in this legislation—namely, that the issues raised are


not justiciable. That was argued out ad nauseam on the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The hon. Gentleman argued that this is really an administrative matter. Is this so? Even if it were entirely an administrative matter, is not the nature of the Companies Court judge's jurisdiction more analogous to an administrative procedure than to something which is strictly justiciable? The judge has to make up his mind on the points of detail that arise when the scheme of arrangement is under consideration by the court, but the jurisdiction of the Companies Court is of the nature of an administrative procedure and smacks more of that than of a purely judicial procedure involving the normal processes of the courts.
The point about this, however, is that at some stage, and it may be at many stages, during the working out of the divesting order someone "will have to decide" The Minister without Portfolio will, no doubt, recognise those words for he uttered them three times during the debate in Committee. It is our contention that if someone has to decide, this is exactly the sort of matter which ought to be decided by one of Her Majesty's judges sitting in one of the ordinary courts of the land and not inside the Administration or one of the Departments of Government. Therefore, I submit that, so far as this is a justiciable issue, so far as it is a point which someone will have to decide, it is the courts and not the Government which ought to decide.
The third point made by the Minister without Portfolio was that the right place for this matter to be considered was the Floor of the House when the order is brought in, and that the court is the wrong place. We envisage two stages in this procedure. One is the decision that an order shall be made and the broad lines upon which the Board of Trade will expect the order to be carried into effect. That is clearly one for the Government and should require the approval of this House. The second stage, the detailed stage of implementing the order, is quite different. I submit that it is quite unsuitable for consideration on the Floor of the House.
One's imagination boggles at the suggestion that individual hon. Members, briefed, perhaps, by constituents who

represent different interests in the company which is the subject matter of the order—some perhaps speaking for the preferential shareholder, others for the debenture shareholder and others for the creditors—should argue all the details of this on the Floor of the House when the order is brought up for approval. It would really be a fantastic procedure and I cannot imagine how it could possibly be an effective check upon the power of the Government to carry the order through.
In any event, I believe that I am right in saying that this House has no power to amend an order which comes before it for approval. It has power only to accept it or reject it. Presumably, if the order were so shot full of holes that the Government felt it required to be rewritten, the Minister in charge could withdraw it and we would have a second go at it but that would be a very unsatisfactory procedure. I cannot believe that this matter has been properly thought out by the Board of Trade and that it has seriously envisaged the problems that could arise on the Floor of the House in the event of an order of that kind coming before it in all its details.
Fourthly, I have collected a number of epithets that the Minister without Portfolio applied to the procedure we suggest. He said that it would be unnecessary, anomalous, expensive and undesirable and would cause delay and inconvenience. But it would be just, fair and open. It would give the opportunity to the company concerned, if it had serious points to raise, to put its case in open court and to be heard in public. It would be able to cross-examine and put arguments. In a matter of this sort, where substantial matters of private rights are affected, that is a better procedure than an inevitably somewhat secret administrative machine working behind closed doors.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman argued that there would be no equity in the Statute—I use the word "equity" in its technical sense—since the Government or somebody would have to tell the court, having imposed this duty upon it, how it would resolve that duty. I am quoting as nearly as I can from his words. But, with respect, he has now answered his own question. Without straying beyond the rules of order, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Government Amendment


No. 71, the new Schedule, which is entitled:
Procedure preliminary to laying drafts of Orders referred to in section 3(10)(a) of this Act.
This is the Government's solution to the problem and the concluding words seem to me to express exactly the duty that should quite properly be placed upon the court in these circumstances when implementing the order which the Board of Trade has seen fit to introduce. The court should ensure, to use the words of the Schedule,
… that the rights and interests of persons likely to be affected by the provisions of the order are so adjusted as to secure an equitable distribution of any burden or benefit ensuing from any provision of the order.
I cannot see the difficulty. If that duty were placed on the court, it would be perfectly clear.
I think that I have now listed all five of the major grounds upon which the Government sought to resist this Amendment in Committee. I hope that I have convinced the House that some of them have no foundation but that, where there are some grounds, those grounds are not sufficient to lead the House to reject the Amendment. The choice is clear. We on this side clearly prefer to see the matter, the detailed implementation of the order, brought before the court and argued out in open court where all the parties can put their point of view and where justice can be seen to be done. The Government's solution is to do it behind closed doors within the Department as part of the administrative machine. That, in our view, is unacceptable.

9.30 p.m.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has had to say about the Amendment, and I also listened very carefully, as the whole Committee did, to what he had to say at even greater length in Committee. I am bound to say that he has not added much by way of argument to what he said in Committee.
In his introductory remarks, quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), he posed what we all agree to be the question when he said that what was at issue was to ensure that the arrangements by which the

divestment took place should be seen to be fair. The difference between the situation in Committee, and as it now appears, is that since the Committee stage, and very largely as a result of the protracted debate which we had then, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has put forward a whole series of Amendments which go a very long way to meet the substance, though not the form, of the criticisms which were made in Committee.
I then gave a series of undertakings, all of which are implemented by the Government's Amendments, which we shall reach in a few moments. Those undertakings in effect were that the Government would put forward Amendments to this Clause which would, first, create a statutory obligation to publish a preliminary draft Order; secondly, to require the Board of Trade to give interested parties an opportunity to make representations before preparing the final draft of the Order to be made before Parliament; thirdly, requiring the Board of Trade to take account of those representations before preparing the final draft Order; finally, after further debate in Committee, I went further and gave the undertaking that we would also introduce an obligation that in the making of any Order for divestment regard should be had to the need for equitable adjustment of the rights of the parties. Those undertakings are now incorporated in Amendment No. 31 which is the paving Amendment for the new Schedule in Amendment No. 71.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the simple issue between us is whether the detailed arrangements which will flow from any divestment Order should be left for adjudication in a court of law by some procedure similar to that which obtains under Section 206 of the Companies Act when a company is wound up, or when there is an amalgamation; or whether those details and complex arrangements, including not only the respective rights as between the various classes of shareholders, debenture holders, creditors and other contracting parties, should be left for settlement either by the Board of Trade itself, or by the Board of Trade in consultation with some eminent lawyer, chartered accountant or other expert qualified to deal with these matters, as will frequently be the case.
The hon. Gentleman keeps repeating that he would be happier if these matters were dealt with by a court of law and he says how important it is that there should be impartiality. I must remind the House that it is not only the courts which are capable of handling matters of this kind with impartiality, and that it is not the function of the courts to deal with complicated solutions on the basis of what is fair, as the Amendment would require. That is not the function of the court of law. Judges have repeatedly complained that it is not what they ought to be asked to do. There was an instance only the other day in the House of Lords when a Law Lord and an ex-Lord Chancellor pointed this out. It must be repeated in this House in answer to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford
The duty of Her Majesty's Judges is not merely to administer justice, but to administer justice according to the law. Those of us who have taken the judicial Oath will remember it; it for ever rings in our ears. It is to do right to all manner of men according to the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will'—and that is what Her Majesty's Judges try to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1965; House of Lords, Vol. 266, c. 21.]
It follows from that that this House ought not to impose upon Her Majesty's judges the obligation of resolving matters in dispute between citizens on the basis of what is fair without first laying down the principles which should apply. It is for Parliament to make laws and it is for the judges to administer those laws. If circumstances arise in monopoly legislation in which, as a result of a divestment order having to be made, somewhat complicated assessments have to be made between the respective interests of various parties, in a situation in which Parliament has not and cannot lay down any canon or yardstick which the judges should apply, it is not fair to ask those judges to discharge that function. It is placing upon them a burden which is unreasonable and contrary to the high judicial office which they serve. I have tried to make it plain in the Committee stage, and I repeat with emphasis that in my view it would be contrary to all principle and constitutional understanding and relationship between Parliament and the judiciary if that Amendment were accepted.
There is the necessity of making arrangements that are fair and equitable between the parties. That is what the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade seeks to do. It goes far beyond the definition in the Opposition Amendment which is merely an injunction to Her Majesty's judges to do what is fair. That is something which I do not think ought to be imposed upon them. We have examined this matter at great length, and I thought that by putting down this series of Amendments we had ensured that the interested parties would not, as the Bill originally proposed, be faced with a draft order but that they would have ample opportunity of seeing a preliminary draft order advertised in the London Gazette and brought to their notice, followed by the opportunity of having consultations with the Board of Trade in which they could make representations. Over and above that there is the assurance that wherever necessary some expert on this subject will be called on to settle disputes. I would have thought that solution would have been more than enough to satisfy the Opposition that we wanted to meet their legitimate objections in the best possible way.
The hon. Member referred to five points which were dealt with in Committee. I have attempted to deal with all of them. For the reasons which I have given, I hope that these Amendments will be rejected.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I reject entirely the Minister's suggestion that the judges could not do this job. They have frequently to apply the principles of equity, which are fairly clear and are laid down in a very good book called Snell with which the Minister is undoubtedly familiar.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If the Minister cannot read the whole of Snell, I can refer him to Rivington's Epitome of Snell, of which the fifth edition was edited by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: What is fair and equitable is not the length of the Chancellor's foot. It is laid down in various principles going back over hundreds of years. If we cannot find one of those


principles, we are driven to such fundamental principles as equity is equality and all the other maxims which illustrate the good sense of the courts of equity since the days of Lord Chancellor Nottingham and before. I have no doubt that these principles will also be applied by the Board of Trade if the Minister has his way, because they are not something dreamt up and artificial but are fundamental to our ideas of justice.
The judges of the Companies Court are accustomed to applying these principles in matters dealing with a conflict of interest between different classes of contractors and different debtors, some of whom may have floating charges over the whole assets of a company to be divested and the question of where the floating charge shall fall in the case of divestment. I am sure that the Board of Trade will be obliged to apply these principles, subject to the advice of a distinguished lawyer or accountant, whoever it is the Minister wishes to bring in. The only question between us is whether it is to be done openly so that people can see and hear how it is done, or whether it is to be done secretly.
It seems to me far better that it should be done openly, because if somebody does not get his way, or if his submission is turned down, he will not go away with that sense of grievance which people always have, rightly or wrongly, and usually wrongly. If it is done secretly and by administrative order, people always think that they have been "got at" and that they have been unfairly treated, whereas if it is done in open court, where they can hear what the other parties say and meet it in public, they go away with a far less sense of grievance. The Minister knows this perfectly well. That is the point of administering justice in open court before a person who is totally independent of political pressure.
The principles which will be administered by the Board of Trade will be those which the judges administer. I am sure that it will do its best to be impartial and that most of the time, if not all of the time, it will succeed. The only residual complaint will be that people will not believe that it happens because they want to have their day in court. This is not one of those cases about which we often

hear where people say, "But the courts are so expensive", because, ex hypothesi, a good deal of money will be at stake. They will not be cases in which there is a dispute under the National Health Act or the National Insurance Act on the part of people who cannot afford legal fees. A good deal of money will be in dispute, and therefore the expense of the proceedings before the Companies Court are not an issue.
The only issue is whether it is to be done openly and whether justice is not only done but seen to be done, because, as I say, the principles on which the Board of Trade acts will be exactly the same as the age-long principles on which the Companies Court acts and on which any court of law administering a system of equity has acted on for centuries.

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: The argument which I have heard on the Amendment seems to be very much the argument that was put many centuries ago over the Star Chamber Court, through which many of us pass when we come into the House every day. The Star Chamber Court probably dispensed as good justice as was carried out in the ordinary courts of the Realm, but it was carried out in secret and, therefore, the public had no confidence in it.
When we in this House pass legislation, we are not able to find whether it works in a just manner unless the cases that come before the court as a result of that legislation are dealt with in public so that we as Members of Parliament and people throughout the country can form a view of what is happening. For the Board of Trade to deal with these problems in secret—

Sir Eric Fletcher: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no question of secrecy. A draft scheme must be produced and published in the London Gazette. In the second stage, it must be laid before the House. There is no question of secrecy. All this will be done in broadest daylight.

Sir D. Glover: With respect, it will not be done in daylight, because most of the arguments and submissions will be put before a body appointed by the Board of Trade. They will not take place in public. The only basis on which


we get justice done is when all the submissions and counter-arguments on both sides are made in open court.
Judges are just as able to deal with these problems as anybody in the Board of Trade. I am certain that the House is taking a retrograde step in producing legislation which will not be operated in the full blaze of publicity of the realm. Therefore, because of these arguments, I support the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: The House will be glad to know that I intend to be short, as all my hon. Friends have been in our many debates on the Amendments today. I shall be short because there is still enough left for us to debate by the many hon. Members who have yet to follow to take us to the early hours—or perhaps I should say the late hours—of the morning and I do not want to keep the House too long. Furthermore, I realise that debates on what are sometimes rather technical matters which may take place in the small hours, even though relieved from time to time by Divisions, can be a little tedious and trying for the patience of hon. Members.
Thirdly, I intend to be short because the case has been deployed fully by my hon. Fr end the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who deployed it with his usual brevity, cogency and eloquence. In Committee upstairs, he deployed the case at considerable and greater length, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) to whom, with others of my hon. Friends, tribute was paid by the Minister without Portfolio. There is no doubt that in Committee my hon. Friends did a great service to the House by highlighting the problem that would arise if an Amendment such as we suggested was not incorporated in the Bill.
I agree that the Minister has done exactly as he promised to do. He has introduced an Amendment making it a statutory obligation to publish a preliminary

draft order. We said that we would consider whatever proposal the Minister put forward and that in the meantime we would table our own Amendments to safeguard our position. Having considered the Minister's Amendment, my hon. Friends and I do not consider that it goes far enough.

The point at issue, which has been stressed on several occasions from both sides, is whether the matter should be dealt with administratively or judicially. It has been argued time and time again that some aspects of a proposed scheme or order would not be judiciable. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) answered that point extremely well and demolished that argument.

It has been said by the Minister without Portfolio that the courts are not the only impartial bodies, and I accept that. It is true that a Department of State can, in certain circumstances at least, be equally impartial. The point is whether those who have to appear before the Department of State believe that it is likely to be as impartial as a court of law. It is a platitude to say that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, but a platitude, after all, is only a truth of which we are tired of hearing: it does not get any less true by repetition. This is a case where justice has to be seen to be done, and I think it has been shown by my hon. Friends, time and time again, by their arguments skilfully deployed, that the courts would be able to deal with these questions.

For these reasons, and because we are not at all satisfied that the alternative way proposed by the Government is the right way of doing it, and because we believe our Amendment is the right way, I would advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 162.

Division No. 212.]
AYES
[9.51 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Berkeley, Humphry
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Biff en, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Baker, W. H. K.
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bingham, R. M.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Barlow, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Burden, F. A.


Bell, Ronald
Box, Donald
Butcher, Sir Herbert




Buxton, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Channon, H. P. G.
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cole, Norman
Hooson, H. E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Corfield, F. V.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Costain, A. P
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Roberts, sir Peter (Heeley)


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Sharpies, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kilfedder, James A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kirk, Peter
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emery, Peter
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eyre, Reginald
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardner, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maitland, Sir John
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Whitelaw, William


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wise, A. R.


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Mr. Francis Pym and


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnett, Joel
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. (Stechford)


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blackburn, F.
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Boston, T. G.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Ginsburg, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth. Central)


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
Leadbitter, Ted


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grey, Charles
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lomas, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hannan, William
McBride, Neil


Chapman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
McCann, J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hart, Mrs. Judith
MacColl, James


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hazell, Bert
MacDermot, Niall


Cronin, John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McGuire, Michael


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
McLeavy, Frank


Darling, George
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Manuel, Archie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Holman, Percy
Mapp, Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Homer, John
Marsh, Richard


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mason, Roy


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Molloy, William


Delargy, Hugh
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dodds, Norman
Howie, W.
Murray, Albert


Donnelly, Desmond
Hoy, James
Newens, Stan


Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Norwood, Christopher


English, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oakes, Gordon


Ensor, David
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric







O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Rowland, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert
Urwln, T. W.


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Owen, Will
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Wallace, George


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Parker, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Whitlock, William


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Perry, Ernest G.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Popplewell, Ernest
Snow, Julian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stones, William
Winterbottom, R, E.


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn, Dr. Shirley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Swain, Thomas
Zilliacus, K.


Redhead, Edward
Swingler, Stephen



Reynolds, G. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mr. George Lawson and




Mr. Harry Gourlay.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Monopolies and Mergers Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 17, to leave out "or otherwise".

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House should consider Amendment No. 52, in page 13, line 17 at the end to insert—
() Section 3 of the principal Act, as applied by section 6, shall have effect as if, in subsection (4), the reference to bodies corporate becoming interconnected bodies corporate included a reference to enterprises being brought under common control otherwise than by reason of their becoming enterprises of interconnected bodies corporate, and to enterprises ceasing to be carried on as mentioned in subsection (1) above, and, in subsection (5), the reference to the division of a trade or business as therein mentioned included a reference to the separation, by the sale of any part of any undertaking or assets concerned or other means, of enterprises which are under common control otherwise than by reason of their being enterprises of interconnected bodies corporate.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that it will be convenient to take the two Amendments together.
This is a short but not unimportant point which, owing to some muddle on both sides of the Committee, we were unfortunately unable to take in Committee. Clause 3(5) states that
The Board may provide for the division of any trade or business by the sale of any

part of the undertaking or assets or otherwise …
The Board of Trade are therefore taking very wide powers. What have they in mind by the inclusion of the words "or otherwise"? Under which circumstances would it be necessary to provide
for the division of any trade or business
in any circumstances apart from
the sale of any part of the undertaking or assets"?
Have the Board of Trade any examples in mind for which this sort of procedure, whatever it may be, would be appropriate?
I can imagine that under the subsection it would be possible for the Board of Trade—although I hope improbable—to divide any assets arbitrarily, alloting some assets to some and some to others. But I do not see how that could be done with the assets of a company. Presumably they would have to liquidate the company to sell the assets and split the proceeds among the people among whom they wished to divide the assets, in which case they would have provided for a division of the trade or business by the sale of any part of the undertaking.
I hope that the Minister of State will tell us under which circumstances he proposes to use the words "or otherwise", which are in a sense repeated in the Government's Amendment No. 52, which includes the words
the division of a trade or business as therein mentioned included a reference to the separation, by the sale of any part of any undertaking or assets concerned or other means …
That covers the same point.
The Clause as drafted gives the Government practically carte blanche as to how they treat assets in a company. No one


should ever give any Government carte blanche, and certainly not this Government, and certainly not without finding out exactly what they have in mind. I can envisage no circumstances in which it would be possible to provide for the division of any such trade or business unless there were a sale of some part of the undertaking at some stage. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why the words are in the Bill. Is it just a precaution for the remote future to deal with some obscure situation? What is the reason for the inclusion of these words?

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said, this is a small point, although it could be important if one read into it the misgivings he appears to have. This is a cautionary suggestion, because if the Amendment were accepted the effect would be that the Board of Trade could provide for a trade or business to be divided only by the sale of its undertaking or its assets. This might operate, in certain circumstances, to the disadvantage of the parties concerned.
As the hon. Member knows, these are hypothetical matters at the moment, although we have looked back at previous monopoly examinations to see whether we are on firm ground. The probability we have in mind is where, for example, it might be more convenient for part of the undertaking or assets of a company to be transferred to another company in return for shares issued either to the first-named company or to its shareholders. Technically, this would not be a sale, but it would be excluded. It would be an arrangement which might be of great advantage to the parties concerned, because this would be better than selling off the assets. Therefore, to exclude the possibility from the Bill would, we think, be rather a mistake.
In most cases, where divestment is called for on a report from the Commission it would be obtained by a sale of the undertaking or part of the undertaking, or whatever it may be. But circumstances may arise where the example I have given would be of greater advantage to the persons concerned.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I find that a most puzzling reply, and I say that with

respect to the Minister of State. What is the example which he gives of the transfer of assets in exchange for the issue of shares if it is not a sale? How does the nature of the consideration affect the basis of the transaction? However this matter is dealt with, at some stage there must be a sale. It might be possible, as my hon. Friend said, to envisage a case, to take a silly example, where a company is running two buses and it has been found to be monopolising a particular corner of the country. It has two shareholders, and the buses are to be divided between the two shareholders. Even that would have to be a sale. The company would be liquidated and the liquidator would sell the buses one to each shareholder. The authorities I have consulted on this matter cannot envisage any circumstances whereby a divesting under this subsection can take place without there being technically a sale; hence the Amendment to remove the words "or otherwise", and I remain utterly unconvinced by what the Minister of State has said in his reply.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I echo the misgivings which have been voiced by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). The example quoted by the Minister of State was a transfer for consideration. It is true that it was a transfer for shares, but for the valuable consideration which those shares represent. Surely that is nothing less than a sale. These words are surplusage, because the disposal of that part of the company which has been divested can be obtained eventually only through a sale. The Minister of State's reply was puzzling. I should like to be reassured.

Mr. Darling: I am glad that at last, since Second Reading, we have had some words from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Hooson: There have been none before simply because no Liberal Member was put on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Darling: We have been discussing the Bill since 3.30 this afternoon. Subsection (5) says this:
The Board may provide for the division of any trade or business by the sale of any part of the undertaking or assets or otherwise.
We have taken this to mean that the arrangement is for a straightforward sale.


The situation I was describing would be more correctly described as an exchange of shares, which is not the same as a sale. Therefore the words "or otherwise" have been put in to cover that situation.

Mr. Channon: When I moved the Amendment my hon. Friends and I had imagined that there would be some simple explanation for the inclusion of these words. I find the Minister of State's explanation incomprehensible. I am fortified in this view by the support of the Liberal Party, which I did not expect to have. I cannot understand why the transfer of assets for shares should not be a sale, whereas the transfer of assets for money is a sale. I am no lawyer, but I am supported by two Queen's Counsel. My hon. Friends must have found the Minister of State's reply extremely unsatisfactory, one which has made them have worries about this part

of the Bill which they did not have before this short debate took place.

In view of the Minister of State's reply, the best thing for us to do is to test the matter in the Lobbies. This is most unsatisfactory. I cannot believe that any hon. Member opposite could have understood the Minister of State's explanation. If there is any doubt whatsoever, it is far better for the Government's powers to be restricted to provide
for the division of any trade or business by the sale …

That is clear. It is comprehensible. What the Government have put into the Bill is neither clear nor comprehensible. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That "or otherwise" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 151.

Division No. 213.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Richard


Alldritt, Walter
Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnett, Joel
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Molloy, William


Beaney, Alan
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Boston, T. G.
Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stan


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Boyden, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Norwood, Christopher


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oakes, Gordon


Bradley, Tom
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Ogden, Eric


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Holman, Percy
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Homer, John
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Will


Chapman, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howie, W.
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, James
Parker, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parkin, B. T.


Cronin, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, Ernest G.


Darling, George
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, Edward


Donnelly, Desmond
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, G. W.


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rowland, Christopher


Ensor, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Floud, Bernard
McCann, J.
Skeffington, Arthur


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Stones, William


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley




Swain, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Swingler, Stephen
Wallace, George
Winter-bottom, R. E.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, William (Walsall. N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Whitlock, William



Tomney, Frank
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tuck, Raphael
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. George Lawson and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Ifor Davies.


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Grieve, Percy
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Peel, John


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Dame Edith


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Box, Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Buxton, Ronald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Carlisle, Mark
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sharpies, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Hooson, H. E.
Shepherd, William


Chataway, Christopher
Hopkins, Alan
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hordern, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Corfield, F. V.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crawley, Aidan
Kilfedder, James A.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walters, Dennis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
Loveys, Walter H.
Webster, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lubbock, Eric
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Whitelaw, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wise, A. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley



Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Mr. Jasper More and


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move, Amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 43, to leave out from "above" to "the" in line 44.
The purpose of the Amendment is quite clear, like that of all our Amendments. It deletes the words
or have the making of such an order under consideration".
We feel that it is wrong that the Board of Trade, only having the making of an order in mind, should be able to bring the activities of a company to a halt and to impose all the restrictions empowered under the Clause, including the power to control and supervise the company until such time as the Board decided whether or not it wished to make an order.
It is generally realised that it could be the cause of serious damage to a concern in that if the Board eventually decided not to proceed the concern would be unable to claim any compensation. We might have had a different view of the Clause if the Government had included a provision for compensation but they have not seen fit so to do. The reason for the insertion of the Clause, as I understand it and as the Minister of State confirmed in Committee, was to cover the possibility of a company, being subject to an adverse report by the Commission, attempting to forestall what it foresaw might be appropriate Board of Trade action. That, as I understand it, is really the reason why these words have been put in.
I suggested in Committee, and I suggest again now, that a Clause on the lines of Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, which dealt with the dissipation of assets by transactions involving payments, distributions and so forth to members of the company, might have met the point which the Minister had in mind, and I still think that a Clause on those lines might deal with the worry which the Government have. The Minister of State promised in Committee,
… we will look at the matter again to make sure that action will be taken only on receipt of an adverse report from the Monopolies Commission. The Board of Trade will not lay art order to prohibit or restrict the doing of things which might impede the operations of a company".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th May, 1965; c. 318.]

The Government have tabled Amendment No. 27, which we are discussing with this one, to insert the words:
with a view to the achievement of that purpose".
That does not seem to make very much change.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are not discussing Amendment No. 27 at the moment.

Mr. Hall: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought for a moment that we were debating the two together. However, it appears to me that the one relates to the other, and I am sure that the Minister takes the point I make.
Perhaps I may again use the analogy of matrimonial intention which I used in Committee. As the Clause now stands, if the Minister had marriage under consideration, he could under the powers given by the Clause not only prevent the lady of his choice from marrying anyone else but he could also anticipate all the things he might do if, in fact, he did enter into marriage. That is the position under the Clause as it stands before the Amendment which we shall come to later. If I may just mention that later proposal again without going out of order, it would enable the Minister to say to his intended bride, "Everything I do is with a view to the achievement of my purpose, which at the moment is matrimony".
The analogy is perfect but for one thing. If, having done his worst, the Minister did not marry, he could be sued for damages. Unfortunately, if the Board of Trade has done its worst to a company, has threatened an order and has taken action because it had the issuing of an order under consideration, and if the company is damaged thereby, there will be no claim to compensation of any kind. We do not regard the Government's Amendment as satisfactory. We consider that our Amendment No. 26, which I have moved, does precisely what we want to do. It removes the offending words, which we do not think should be there because they are inserted to provide against a possible contingency which can be covered in other ways.
For these reasons I hope that, even at this stage and after tabling their own Amendment, the Government will relent


and be prepared to accept our Amendment in place of their own.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has reminded us that we discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I gave an undertaking that we would try to find a form of words to meet the legitimate concern then expressed. In a moment, I shall explain the difficulty we have had in seeking suitable words.
The hon. Member tried to use, both in Committee and today, the analogy of marriage to explain the point of view that he had in mind. But I think that a more accurate analogy would be divorce. The measures that the Board of Trade may well take will be to divest—to break up—rather than to amalgamate. As the subsection is drafted, it provides for the Board of Trade to make orders to prevent the frustration of an order breaking up the business or other appropriate action, not only where such a break-up order under subsection (5) has been made but also where the Board of Trade has the making of such an order under consideration, which I suggest is very different from saying "a break-up order which the Board of Trade has in mind". It is actively under consideration.
If these words were removed, the Board of Trade would not be able to act in anticipation of the breaking up order. We think it is important that the Board should have the power conferred by these words. First, the preparation of a breakup order under subsection (5), as I am sure the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) would agree, might in certain circumstances take a considerable time. The proposed scheme might be complicated. As I am sure that both the hon. Member for Reading and the hon. Member for Wycombe would like us to express again the purpose here, lengthy discussions with the firms concerned will probably be necessary because one does not want to take arbitrary action where arbitrary action is not needed. If one can get agreement between the firms, so much the better. Again, the draft order would then be required to be laid before each House of Parliament and approved by Resolution.

All this will take time. If the Board of Trade could not use the powers that are conferred by subsection (6) before an order for the purposes of subsection (5) was actually made, it might be possible for the persons concerned so to arrange their affairs as to render the operation of the expected break-up order unnecessarily difficult, if not impossible.
The matter, as I say, was discussed fully in Committee, and I undertook to see whether a form of words could be found which would make it quite clear that the Board would not use the power unless there had been an adverse report and the Board was bona fide contemplating the making of an order exercising the powers that are conferred by subsection (5). It is already clear that the power conferred by Clause 3(6) cannot be exercised unless there has been an adverse report. We have considered various ways of expressing this condition so as to indicate that the Board must be seriously and honestly considering the making of an order exercising the powers under subsection (5), and, short of imposing conditions which would, we think, deprive the power of most of its value, we cannot think of any words which express this intention better than the words which it is now proposed to delete.
The hon. Member for Wycombe both in Committee and a few moments ago suggested that the Board's position could be protected by a provision on the lines of Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949. We think that there is not a true parallel here. That Section was aimed against the dissipation of assets by companies due to be nationalised, and prohibited the return of capital to members and similar transactions except with the approval of the Minister. We think that this is quite a different situation, where the Board of Trade on an adverse report from the Monopolies Commission is quite clearly contemplating a break-up order, but before the order is made all the circumstances that I have referred to—the discussions with the firms concerned, the laying of the order before both Houses of Parliament—inevitably lead to delay before the appropriate action is taken. I think that one has to ensure that the Board of Trade has powers to deal with any action that would frustrate the purposes which the


Board has in mind on the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission.
Of course, we cannot foresee all the ways in which a company may set out to frustrate a divestment order once it suspects that one is to be made and therefore we cannot accept a limited power such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. But I make it clear again—and this is implicit in the Clause—that the Board of Trade could not possibly take action, using the power that the hon. Gentleman wants to omit, unless there had been an adverse report from the Monopolies Commission, because such an order could not be brought before Parliament unless there was clear justification for it.
I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if the Board of Trade has to bring an order forward because of an adverse report of the Monopolies Commission, we should not allow anyone to take action that would frustrate the purpose of that order to their own advantage and against the public interest.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Gentleman will understand when I say that his argument is familiar and that it is really the one he deployed in Committee. I agree that my argument also, with some slight additions, is familiar. But the

hon. Gentleman has not met the point that worries us.

If we leave the Clause as it stands, the Board—even accepting the fact that it would only be on an adverse report—could, if it had an order under consideration, do all the things laid down in the Clause—prohibit or restrict the doing of things which might restrict or frustrate the order, for instance, and appoint a person to conduct or supervise the activities of the company.

All these things could seriously affect the conduct of a business. But if, at the end of the day, the Board decided not to make the order it might have done very considerable harm in the meantime to the operation of the company concerned. It is this point which worries us and it was in acknowledgment of that worry that the hon. Gentleman agreed to search for some alternative form of words which would meet our point of view. However, we do not believe that the Government have succeded in doing so. We must press our point of view and I therefore advise my hon. Friends to divide the House on this matter.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes 145.

Division No. 214.]
AYES
[10.38 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Ensor, David
Hoy, James


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Barnett, Joel
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Boston, T. G.
Floud, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ginsburg, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Gregory, Arnold
Kenyon, Clifford


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Grey, Charles
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)



Chapman, Donald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lawson, George


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Cronin, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hazell, Bert
Lomas, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Loughlin, Charles


Darling, George
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Lubbock, Eric


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
McBride, Neil


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
McCann, J.


Delargy, Hugh
Holman, Percy
MacColl, James


Dodds, Norman
Hooson, H. E.
MacDermot, Niall


Donnelly, Desmond
Horner, John
McGuire, Michael


Driberg, Tom
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Dunn, James A.
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Manuel, Archie


Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marsh, Richard


English, Michael
Howie, W.
Mason, Roy




Maxwell, Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen


Molloy, William
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfleld)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Murray, Albert
Redhead, Edward
Thorpe, Jeremy


Newens, Stan
Reynolds, G. W.
Tomney, Frank


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Richard, Ivor
Tuck, Raphael


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Urwin, T. W.


Norwood, Christopher
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Oakes, Gordon
Rowland, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert
Wallace, George


O'Malley, Brian
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Orme, Stanley
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Owen, Will
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilkins, W. A.


Palmer, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willis, George (Ebinburgh, E.)


Parker, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parkin, B. T.
Snow, Julian
Zilliacus, K.


Pavitt, Laurence
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Pentland, Norman
Stonehouse, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, Ernest G.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Mr. Ifor Danes, and


Popplewell, Ernest
Summershill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Button)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mitchell, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Blffen, John
Grieve, Percy
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Pounder, Rafton


Box, Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Buxton, Ronald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sharpies, Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Hopkins, Alan
Shepherd, William


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hordern, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn Dame P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Stainton, Keith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crawley, Aidan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Curran, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Walters, Dennis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
Loveys, Walter H.
Webster, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Whitelaw, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wise, A. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest



Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Mr. Jasper More and


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 6, line 44, after "Board", to insert:
with a view to the achievement of that purpose

This is a clarifying Amendment. I am the first to admit that some legislation introduced into this House is capable of clarification. In this case, it was suggested in Committee that after the Board


of Trade had made a divestment order, its powers of control over the companies concerned might, in accordance with the Bill, although this was not intended, have been totally unrestricted.
We never wished that they should be so unrestricted. They were merely intended to go as far as the control that was necessary for the proper carrying out of the order. The words which I now propose to introduce make that perfectly clear and beyond doubt, as, I think, the House would wish.

Mr. John Hall: The Minister's explanation of the Amendment does nothing to remove my previous uneasiness in his refusing to accept our Amendment No. 26. As, however, one-eighth of a loaf is better than no bread, we do not propose to oppose the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 7, line 25, to leave out the second "directions" and to insert "order".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): We can also discuss Amendments No. 29 and No. 30, in page 7, line 29, leave out "directions" and insert "order", and in line 35, leave out "vary or".

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: These three Amendments are, I am afraid, an exercise in biting the hand that feeds one, because in Committee the Minister without Portfolio drew attention to a matter which nobody had drawn attention to, and with characteristic candour and frankness he said that the powers contained in subsection (8) of the Clause were very unusual. He said they were.
unusually wide powers which are not subject to Parliamentary control … I think it should be pointed out that if Parliament passes an order under subsection (10) containing those directions to individuals, those directions will not have to come before Parliament.
He gave one of the reasons:
It may be undesirable that they should do so because it might give publicity to individuals who, in their own interest, would not wish their names to be mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th May, 1965; c. 343–4.]
I see the reason he gave for a very remarkable example of sub-delegated legislation. As subsection (8) now stands,

the Board of Trade may be authorised by an order which is subject to Parliamentary control to give directions to a person specified in the directions to take certain steps "within his competence" or
to do or refrain from doing anything … specified or described which he might be required to do or refrain from doing".
In general, the directions which may be given and the persons who may be named are in very wide terms, and subject, as the Minister said, to no sort of Parliamentary control or indeed other control at all. On reflection, we have come to the conclusion that the reason he gave for this remarkable power is really insufficient, namely, that the person concerned would rather have these Draconian powers done secretly without publicity because otherwise publicity might be damaging. It might be damaging, but that is not sufficient reason to outweigh the usual constitutional arrangements which we have, which are that these things should be done quite openly and should be subject to some sort of Parliamentary control.
Therefore, what we suggest is that instead of a person being named only in the directions which are sub-delegated legislation he must be named and specified in the order, and also that the steps which the person named has to take must also be specified or described in the order. That is the effect of our Amendments, including the consequential one, the third, about varying the direction. We wish to delete the power to vary by direction. It is to be my means of revoking the order and making a new order which, again, would be under Parliamentary control.
I think the point is fairly clear. It is a constitutional matter. It is to try to remove the extraordinary nature of this sub-delegated legislation. Whatever the good intentions of the Minister without Portfolio—and I certainly see them and honour them—I do not think it right that these secret directions should be made with such little foundation as a general order not specifying the person to whom it is directed, not specifying the steps which that person has to take, in the only instrument which has Parliamentary control upon it. That is not a point which requires any elaboration.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I think that the House is grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for having put down these Amendments although, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, the Opposition cannot on this occasion claim any credit for the initiative. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled them, because they give us an opportunity for a short while to discuss exactly what the subsection does. I think that before accepting it, and, as I hope, rejecting the Amendment for the reasons that I shall give, it is important to understand what is intended by the subsection.
I have considered whether the Amendments could be accepted, and I have come to the conclusion that they do not really either take away from the Board of Trade the power which the subsection is intended to give to it, or have the effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates they should have, or at any rate only in part.
It is the case that if an Order has to be made under subsection (5), that is to say a divesting order, it will, as a consequence of that, be necessary to ensure that it is properly enforced, otherwise it could be evaded and nullified. Therefore, if a divesting Order has to be made, it will become necessary for the Board of Trade to give directions to individuals to take certain steps. For example, if a divesting Order involves a company in selling its shares to another company, at some stage the directors and secretary of the company which is going to sell its shares will have to execute share transfers. If there is any difficulty about enforcing a divesting Order which, ex hypothesi at that time would have had the approval of Parliament, it follows that effect must be given to the wishes of Parliament. That may involve the Board of Trade giving directions to A, B and C that they shall execute certain documents, in the same way as the court has to have residual powers to see that its decrees are carried out.
Having reflected on this matter, I can see no escape from letting the Board of Trade have power by an Order, if approved by both Houses of Parliament, to direct unspecified and unnamed individuals, that is to say unspecified and unnamed in the Order, to do certain things. The reason why it is not possible, or perhaps

desirable, to name the individuals in the order is not exclusively the reason that I gave in Committee. It may well be that it will not be possible, when the order is made, to identify the individuals to whom the directions have to be given. It may also be the case that if certain individuals are specified and given directions to do things evasive action could be taken, either by a company forming a subsidiary, or adopting one or other of the several devices which hon. Members know are open to those who manipulate companies, subsidiary companies, and associated companies, and such evasive action could defeat the intentions of Parliament.
Therefore, although, as I concede, and as I have pointed out, this is an unusual form of sub-delegated legislation, I can see no escape from it. My advice to the House is that, its attention having been drawn, with its eyes open, to what it is being asked to do, it is the only logical way of carrying out the intentions of Parliament.
11.0 p.m.
It might be said that that is all very well, but there must be some safeguard for seeing what the Board of Trade does. I have considered how that kind of objection can be met. There are two ways. It would always be open to any hon. Member to ask the President of the Board of Trade what directions had been given following an order made and approved by Parliament, and he could, I suppose, also be asked if he would place copies of any such directions in the Library. Although I cannot commit any President of the Board of Trade either now or in future as to what he might do, I indicate that as showing that there are methods whereby action taken in the way contemplated by this subsection could be made available to Members of Parliament. For these reasons and with this explanation I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied that it would be impracticable to accept his Amendment.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Although we have had certain strictures from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), the House will appreciate that there was no Liberal on the Committee. Therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House if I should raise a point which might have been


dealt with in Committee. From a constitutional point of view, is not what the Minister is saying that he can see the force of the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), that Parliament should be able to question any particular order, but that it is difficult to make an order with any precision and with any certainty by naming the parties involved for the simple reason that it might not be all-embracing, that there might be certain persons who were operating certain practices to which the Board of Trade took objections but who might be omitted from the terms of an order specifically designating certain people?
But surely the contrary is of equal importance, namely, that when a Department of State makes an order specifying that certain practices shall or shall not be stopped, prevented or desisted from, there should be some measure of certainty and finality. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that the net must be so wide that it may not only catch the fishes whom he wishes to catch but it may also pull in certain other sprats of whose existence at the time he is not fully cognisant. This seems a strange constitutional doctrine. Persons must know what the law is, and there must be finality and certainty. After all, this is one of the basic principles of the rule of law—that there is certainty and people know where they stand on a particular issue. This, as I see it, is the great argument against retrospective legislation, that a man may do something in good faith on the basis that it is intra vires only subsequently to find it has been retrospectively made ultra vires.
While one can appreciate the intricacy of this matter, and anyone who has seen the Monopolies Commission or the Restrictive Practices Court in action will know that complexity of these various company arrangements and various trade matters which are the subject of stricture and indeed of examination, I would urge on the Minister strongly that it is surely a bad principle to say that we must define offences so widely and vaguely that not only do we catch those whom we know are operating them, but also those who are operating but whose existence we do not know of at the moment, but whom we hope to get, notwithstanding that, in the net at the same time. I would have

thought that was a novel constitutional doctrine which is certainly new as far as Ministerial directions are concerned.

Mr. Channon: I think the House is grateful to my hon. and learned friend for bringing this point to its attention and also to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for raising so many pertinent points. We have been twitted for not having raised that point on the Committee stage, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) pointed out that the implication of this had not escaped us. I am glad that we have had an opportunity on Report of raising these important issues. The situation has not been left in a wholly satisfactory manner by the answers which we have obtained so far, and there are one or two further questions which I should like to put to the Minister without Portfolio.
First, is the power which he is taking in subsection (8) unprecedented or can he refer us to precedents of such action in the past? Our Amendment does not modify the powers which the Board of Trade would be able to take, but it gives some safeguards to persons who might be affected by such directions. The Board can pass an Order through the House empowering them to give directions to unspecified persons—to be specified only in the directions and not in the Order. What remedy lies open to the person specified in such a direction? My hon. and learned Friend earlier pointed out that someone might be specified in the directions in error or there might be a genuine mistake. What power does that person have to make representations and to have that obvious injustice remedied? The Board have enormous powers under the Clause. The House is right to examine the matter carefully before granting such powers to the Board of Trade and also right to question keenly the decision to use not only delegated legislation but sub-delegated legislation.
In Clause 3 the Board of Trade have power to regulate prices, to stop the acquisition or disposal of assets, to deal with the winding up of companies and the formation of companies, to declare certain practices illegal and to discriminate in any manner specified. The Board are taking a number of very important powers. We do not object; on the whole, they are excellent powers for the Board


of Trade to take. But we consider that there should be some safeguards, and all that the Amendment does is to say that the Board of Trade should specify not in the direction but in the Order to which persons they are giving instructions or to the holder of which office.
The Minister told us that it was not always possible to identify certain individuals, and that it might be possible to evade such an Order. If it is impossible to identify them, will he explain how it is possible to bring them into the net by direction when it is not possible to bring them into the net by the Order?
In Committee he based his case largely on the ground that often it would not be in the interests of the people concerned to have these matters brought out into the open. A few moments ago he said that it would be open to any hon. Member to put down a Question to the Board of Trade asking which directions they had given, and he said that he might be asked to put copies of such directions in the Library. If that is so, very little secrecy is left. If hon. Members, and the public, can get this information any way, there is little safeguard for the people concerned if it is secrecy that they want. It is far more frank for the House to have this information laid down in the Order than to have it in a direction later, especially—unless the President of the Board of Trade refuses to do so—when any hon. Member may at any time ask the right hon. Gentleman to place the directions in the Library. If any President of the Board of Trade refused to place any directions in the Library which he had given based on an Order of the House, he would be open to wide criticism. Indeed, I hope that such a refusal would not occur.
For many years the Minister without Portfolio was a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee, and he knows full well what can be done by delegated legislation. At a time when the House has been criticised from both the Labour and the Liberal benches for not having sufficient control over the executive, this is one small battle in which we are entitled to ask the members of the executive to look again at what they propose. We are not asking for very much. We are asking that the Board of Trade should not wield wide powers and issue instructions

which may affect many people and involve large sums of money, without the House knowing what the instructions are. At a time when we are told that the prestige of the House has never been lower, that the Executive rides rough-shod over us and that we have not the ability to control it, it is the duty of the Government to make sure that they do nothing further to increase this process if they believe it to exist.
We were told in Committee that it would be impossible to reveal people's names in certain conditions, but the Board of Trade takes powers to name the holders of offices. That is all the Board has to do, whether it does it by order or by direction. The Board can give directions not only to a named person but to a holder of an office for the time being in a company or association. The Minister without Portfolio raised a point along these lines. He said that it might be necessary in certain circumstances to give directions to directors of companies or secretaries to execute share transfers if it was necessary to sell certain shares. There is power in subsection (8) to make an order authorising the giving of directions to the holder of an office to do that, and I do not see what harm there would be for an order directing the secretary of a company to execute a share transfer to be laid before the House. That would be quite a proper matter to bring before the House in the ordinary way, subject to a Prayer if necessary. In most cases it would be unlikely that it would be prayed against. It would be a far greater safeguard than the safeguard of secrecy to which the Minister referred earlier.
We ought to allow this subsection to remain in its present form only if two conditions are satisfied; first, if it can definitely be shown that it must be in the public interest for such directions to be made, not subject to the scrutiny of this House; and secondly, if it is shown to be in the interest of the people concerned. However, I cannot see from the examples which the Minister has so far given that it would be in the public interest or in the interest of the people concerned.
I agree with the hon. Member for Devon, North about the necessity for certainty and finality. Our Amendment


adequately meets that point. An order would have to be made. It would be certain and final. The Board of Trade would be able to make another Order if the first one proved insufficient, but that also would be subject to the scrutiny of this House. It would be far more satisfactory to all concerned if these matters could be brought out into the light of day rather than that wide powers should be taken by the Board of Trade.
I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy the House that these matters are in the public interest and in the interest of the people concerned. Without that assurance the Minister's case falls to the ground. If this subsection goes into the Bill in the terms in which it is drafted, it will be very necessary to watch this legislation extremely closely. I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will administer any such provision with the greatest possible care and with the greatest incentive to minimise injustice. Nevertheless, in a number of important particulars in this and other legislation we have been enlarging the powers of the Board of Trade considerably. The Board of Trade has enormous powers which are not subject to the scrutiny of this House. The House of Commons should assert its traditional right of being allowed to control the Executive and ensure that Orders that affect people, as Orders which are made under subsection (8) do, are subject to the scrutiny of the House.
I hope the Minister will realise that we on this side of the House support these Amendments in no party spirit but in a probing spirit, to discover the purpose of the subsection and to ascertain whether or not it is vital to the Bill that it should remain in its present form. I ask him, if there is any doubt whatsoever in his mind about the necessity of this provision, that he should give the benefit of the doubt to the House of Commons and not to the Executive. If there is any doubt whatsoever he should allow the House of Commons to scrutinise the orders in the ordinary way. I hope that we can be satisfied before we part from the Clause that the intention of the Government will be to protect the interests of the House of Commons in this.
11.15 p.m.
Far too often the House of Commons comes last as far as the Executive is

concerned, and not first. The Minister without Portfolio is well known as a good House of Commons man, and this is a chance for him to show us this evening that he will take into account the genuine and legitimate interests of the House of Commons in considering this subsection of the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that everyone who has the interests of the House of Commons at heart must be very worried about the present situation under this Bill and will support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The Minister has been Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee. I know that we ought to take a great deal of interest in Statutory Instruments. I am one of the few hon. Members who are here late at night when we are debating them. There are very few occasions when we divide the House on Statutory Instruments. Nevertheless, it is the last occasion when this House of Commons has any control over the Executive.
I do not understand how an Order can be produced, which the House of Commons can genuinely debate, when there is an instruction which is not part of the Order and which puts in information that is not being given to the House of Commons. If the Order is going to be put in the Library, there is not going to be much secrecy. If there is no secrecy, surely it is a far better system that the information given in the direction should be included in the Order. Taking the House of Commons to be a slightly lazy body, if these Orders are going to be properly debated, it is necessary that hon. Members should know from the Order what they are arguing about on the Order.
Whatever instruction there may be in the Library, the legislative effect is given by way of the Order before the House of Commons. The fact that there may be some instruction or further information in the Library or some other place does not really affect the problem of that sovereignty of this House.
How are we to agree to an Order, or disagree with it, if we have not got the information in the Order that will allow us to come to a proper conclusion? Is it going to say in the Order that secretary A will be ordered to do such and such thing, or director B to do such an such


a thing? How is the House of Commons going to decide what hon. Members are being asked to do? The fact that we have this in some directive somewhere else is not, I think, relevant to the argument. If we are going to debate this in the House of Commons—and I do not agree with the view that all these Orders will be debated—this is an argument on a slack House of Commons.

Mr. Channon: If Orders are made that should not be made they obviously will be scrutinised, but I hope that some Orders will be made that are so obviously proper and just that the House of Commons will not feel it necessary to spend its time in debating them.

Sir D. Glover: If my hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, my experience of Governments is that the cloudiest Order is the one which we should be debating and the Order which no one minds will be the soul of clarity. If we are not given the information on which to debate these Orders, the Executive is taking more powers and is reducing the power of the House of Commons. I ask that this matter should be looked at again. I am not now speaking as a Conservative but simply as a House of Commons man. The House is far too slack about Orders, but we cannot debate them unless we have the information on which to reach a conclusion. The Amendment would provide that information and it should be accepted. A very disrespectful attitude to the House is being shown.

Mr. John Harvey: I would echo the appeal of my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) on behalf of the House and against the Executive. It is one thing for the Executive to take powers when we understand clearly what they are, but in the last Government Amendment powers were taken over matters which they have "under consideration". What those can be deemed to be could provide a great deal of room for legal argument. This time the words in the Clause are
… to give directions to a person specified in the directions …
I certainly could be fooled on what that means.
If the Executive proposes to take powers over all sorts of things which will

be increasingly difficult to comprehend, the Executive must think again. The legal profession would be a great deal less lucrative if we saw to it that things put on the Statute Book were clearly indicated. It is unforgivable that with our eyes wide open we should put words of this kind in the Statute Book. They may be clear enough to legal luminaries, though I doubt whether they are clear even to them. The Minister without Portfolio must be more forthcoming in this matter.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I should like to clear up some of the points raised, with the leave of the House. I do not complain about the degree of attention given to this matter. It is not a party matter but, as has been said, a House of Commons question. I share the sentiments of hon. Members opposite that the House should be clear about what it is doing. I agree with them that it would be wrong for Parliament to give uncontrolled powers to the Board of Trade unless it is clear that they are necessary and in the public interest. Nobody wants the Board to have power to act arbitrarily or without full Parliamentary control. The only question here is whether it is necessary that the Clause should remain as at present drafted.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) will forgive me for saying that I do not think that he has fully appreciated what is involved in this matter. He did not have the advantage—it was not his fault—of taking part in the debates in Standing Committee. There is no question here of infringing the rule about finality or the rule against uncertainty. Both are not involved. Some of the sentences uttered by hon. Members opposite have magnified the danger which all of us think may be inherent here unless the matter is fully explained in the subsection.
The House should be clear as to the limited effect of the subsection. We are dealing simply and solely with the question of enforcement. There is no question of giving wide and diverse powers in a field in which there is not absolute certainty. We are dealing here with a situation in which there has been a report by the Monopolies Commission recommending the breaking up of a monopoly, the divesting by a monopoly of part of its assets. It is a situation


in which Parliament has decided that a divestment—to use an unfortunate word—is necessary, and, therefore, an order has been brought to the House and approved by the House recommending that, in the public interest, a monopoly concern should part with some of its assets.
Pausing there, that means a disposal either to a purchaser or a competitor or to somebody who is prepared to take them over. All that must be assumed. We are dealing now with something quite novel and unprecedented in this country. There has never been the compulsory divesting of a monopoly interest. If such a situation arises, it will have been approved and have the blessing of Parliament.
Then comes the question of enforcement, and this is all we are concerned with here. How does Parliament give effect to its wish that a monopoly concern should transfer some of its assets? What is the practical method of doing it? It is no use just saying, "Please divest". Unless the wishes of Parliament are observed voluntarily, somebody must say to the directors and shareholders concerned, "You must sign such-and-such transfers of your shares", or "You must deal with such-and-such assets by transferring certain factories to somebody who will buy them". It is purely a question of enforcement. In order to give effect at that stage to the wishes of Parliament, directions have to be given to some individuals to do certain things. That is the whole object of the subsection.
All we are concerned with here is whether the Order containing those directions will have no effect unless it is approved by this House. The issue is whether an Order should give the Board of Trade power to say that A, B, C and D should do certain things or whether the order approved by Parliament should give a blanket authority to the Board of Trade to tell the people who are in the effective position to dispose of the assets that they should do so.
11.30 p.m.
The argument for giving the Board of Trade that power to give blanket directions to unspecified persons is merely this. It may not at that stage be possible to identify with precision the people to whom the directions must be given. They may,

for example, be the directors of a company, in which case they may have resigned and, so far as shareholders in a company are concerned, they can transfer their shares to other persons. What one cannot face is a situation where the wishes of Parliament may be frustrated because, by various devices, steps are taken to prevent Parliament from giving effect to its wishes. That is the answer to the point that Parliament should give directions to the persons who are found to be the appropriate persons for carrying out the wishes of Parliament.
I assure hon. Members opposite that I have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and that I should not recommend what is here recommended were I not satisfied that there is no real invasion of the rights of the House of Commons or that it might be necessary, in certain contingencies, that the Order should contain the power to give blanket directions. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) asked if an Order in these terms was unprecedented. It is not. I have straight away to admit that I cannot recall a specific instance, but as Chairman for some time of the Statutory Instruments Committee I can recall other cases where Parliament has conferred on the Executive powers not merely of delegated legislation, but also of sub-delegated legislation which did not require Parliamentary scrutiny.
The view has been expressed on both sides of the House that Parliament is very jealous of conferring those powers, and that they should not be conferred unless such a course is absolutely necessary. But there is the further safeguard that this debate, so far as it affects the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, will have had a salutary effect. Secondly, I assure the House that no order will be presented which contains this power of sub-delegated legislation unless, in any specific instance, it is required to be justified. Every time there is such an Order the circumstances will have to be specified, but unless subsection (8) is contained in the Bill it will be impossible for any Order under the earlier sections to contain this power of sub-delegation of legislation because, unless the Bill does so provide it, any such acts would always be ultra vires.
I have done my best, if I may say so with respect, to allay some of the


exaggerated fears which have been expressed on this matter. I have given as complete an explanation as possible of why it is in the public interest that we should have this power and of how, in the last resort, the rights of this House are protected.

Mr. Channon: Could the Minister explain this point in order that the situation may be absolutely clear? Why must there be power for the Board of Trade to give a direction to the directors or the shareholders of a certain company so that action shall be taken by directive rather than by an Order under subsection (8)? Does the Minister not agree that he has power to give orders to holders of offices specified in this subsection?

Sir Eric Fletcher: Yes, but if my right hon. Friend is to rely on an Order each time for getting Parliamentary approval, then there is opportunity for evasion, because if the order specifies individuals it may well be found, as I have already pointed out, that they are no longer holders of offices and are, therefore, without the powers. Another Order would have to be made. Unless there is the power to give directions to unspecified persons, then the Order must specify the persons to whom the directions have to be given. There might very well then be frustration of the will of Parliament.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman again. He can give directions not only to persons but to holders of offices. If his argument is that one may make an Order concerning a Mr. Jones, a director or a company, but he may resign and a Mr. Brown may become a director, the hon. Gentleman can make an Order directing the directors of a company. No matter if they change, they are still bound by the Order. So why is it so necessary to do it by direction and not by Order?

Sir Eric Fletcher: To give one example, the company might form a subsidiary and transfer all its assets to it, and so it would be the directors of another subsidiary.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: From what the Minister without Portfolio has said, I am slightly less unhappy than I was at the beginning of the debate. He has admitted one thing, that there is a possibility that these directions will not be

secret. This is very important. He drew a parallel with the enforcement powers of the courts—for example, the giving of injunctions or the making of decrees for specific defaults. I accept that. But these orders are public and people dealing with injuncted persons do so at their peril. Indeed, it adds to the force of the enforcement that it should be public. I should like the Board of Trade directions to be public for the same reason.
We now know that they are to be public to the extent that they may be placed in the Library. This is some advance. We feared that the directions would be directed secretly so that the public would not know about them and there would be no way of complaining about them. I still do not quite understand why a subsequent Order in the proper sense of the word cannot be made and laid. Nevertheless, we have got somewhere. As the Minister said, the debate itself will have done some good. Furthermore, it would be most ungracious to divide the House when the whole debate was, in fact, provoked by the Minister without Portfolio originally. For this, among other reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made In page 8, line 7, after "House", insert:
and the provisions of Schedule [Procedure preliminary to laying draft of orders referred to in section 3(10)(a) of this Act] to this Act shall have effect with respect to the procedure to be followed before laying a draft of such an order".—[Sir Eric Fletcher.]

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I move this Motion largely to ascertain the Government's intentions. The House will agree that we have made good progress up to now. The speeches from this side have been short and to the point. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen seem to treat that remark with levity. But it is true. A perusal of HANSARD will show that the speeches from this side have been short and to the point, have been most constructive in character and have added a great deal to the development of the Bill. The speeches from the Government side have been even shorter both in time and in number. We have had two interesting but short interventions from the Liberal benches.
It is unfortunate that the burden of improving the Bill has fallen largely on the shoulders of my hon. Friends here and in Committee. But I stress that we have not wasted any time throughout the debates in our consideration of the Bill, and that is generally acknowledged. Nevertheless, there are some very important Amendments to follow, as Ministers will agree. If my Motion is not accepted, we shall debate some important Amendments to Clause 4 which cover matters of considerable substance, and, what is even more important, as we get towards the end of the Bill, to Clause 8, which at the present rate of progress is likely to be between four and five o'clock in the morning, we shall debate matters affecting the press, matters of very considerable importance indeed about which there is considerable feeling. I merely ask whether it is wise to deal with these very important matters in the early hours when none of us are at our best, when perhaps we cannot give the attention that we should to them and when, unfortunately, fatigue tends to make us go on much longer in saying things that we could say more shortly if we were fresher.
For these reasons, amongst others, there is a Motion on the Order Paper signed by about 50 hon. Members opposite deploring all-night sittings and pointing out that it is not easy to give proper attention to matters of importance in the early hours. One may have different views on this, but that is the strong opinion on the benches opposite.
In these circumstances, if my Motion cannot be accepted, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will at least let us know his intentions. Are we to go on until we have completed consideration of the Bill, including Third Reading, which might take us to a very late hour tomorrow?

Mr. Jay: I agree that we made excellent progress in a constructive spirit—indeed, such good progress that we should continue. So far as I can see, hon. Members not merely on this side but opposite are still in full possession of their faculties and will continue to be for a long time yet. Everybody is awake, and we even have the Liberal Party with us.
We all believe in higher productivity and the full use of productive assets all

round the clock in industry. Since we are doing so well in such a co-operative spirit, and as there are expressions of alertness on all our faces, we clearly should continue.

Mr. John Hall: I must confess that I did not expect any other answer, but I would point out that we have been in debate now for eight hours. During that time, we have disposed of 31 Amendments at the rate of about one every 15 minutes, which is quite good progress. At that rate of progress, however, the remaining Amendments will take another ten or eleven hours to discuss. Then we are to have Third Reading.
We on this side have always been prepared to sit here all night and during tomorrow as well. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, all the vigour is on this side. We are all alert and all our faculties are alive. We are full of eagerness and vim and are likely to maintain our energy until any hour he cares to mention.
It was the expressions of dismay by hon. Members opposite in their Motion that led me to move my Motion. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is determined to push on we are quite prepared to do so. But I warn him that this will be a long night. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(POWERS EXERCISABLE TO HONOUR TREATY OBLIGATIONS.)

Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 35, at end to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not have effect until the Board have made an order setting out a list of the treaties concerned.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that, at the same time, we also consider Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 in the name of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and the names of his hon. Friends—in page 9, line 2, at end insert:
and which is included in Schedule (Treaties) to this Act.
In page 9, line 2, at end insert:
(5) The Board shall have power by order to add or vary the list of treaties set out in Schedule (Treaties) to this Act.
—and the new Schedule—"Treaties", also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wycombe.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
I am obliged to the President of the Board of Trade for assuring me that I still look as if I am in possession of my faculties. I will do my best to justify his confidence.
We now arrive at Clause 4, which gives certain powers to the Board to exercise the very considerable powers in Clause 3 if there has been or is likely to be a breach of a treaty. When we discussed this in Committee a number of my hon. Friends were concerned to know how anyone would have the opportunity of appreciating what treaty it was they were likely to breach. It was because we did not then feel we had been given an adequate reply to the arguments put forward that this composite series of Amendments has been put on the Order Paper for our consideration. What they do, in brief, is to provide that there is added to the Bill a Schedule specifying, initially, two treaties which are the ones at point at the moment, and ensure that the necessary flexibility is given for those to be added to and for the powers contained in Clause 4 only to come into force when the Board has made an order setting out the list of treaties concerned. That summarises the effect of Clause 4 as it would be if this series of Amendments was accepted.
There was a great deal of probing upstairs to try to find out what was in the President's mind. The point was most succinctly put by the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State of 11th May, 1965, when he said:
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), the appropriate part of Clause 4(1) is about half-way through, where it says that when the Commission makes a report the Board of Trade may take action where something 'has been or is likely to be a breach or a conflict of the Treaty'.
He went on:
Now the only two treaties with which we are really concerned in this regard are the E.F.T.A. Convention and G.A.T.T. Therefore, where action is required so that we honour our E.F.T.A. obligations, I think it is, although perhaps not as clearly stated as the hon. Member for Wycombe would like, implicit in this Clause that we are referring to a treaty of this kind. We do not want to spell it out too clearly, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that there may be other treaties in the future.

That is what he said when hon. Member's on this side of the Committee were probing as to what was in his mind. This point was followed closely by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), with his usual pertinacity. It might be a fair summary to say that he said he was not satisfied that these were the only two treaties and although he may explain it himself later I got the impression that he, and other hon. Members, were questioning in their minds whether there might be treaties additional to those but which were not known to the House.
I am able, after carefully reading the reports of our meetings in Committee, to set at rest the anxieties of any hon. Member who thinks there is some kind of secret treaty in this matter, for the Minister of State was quite explicit. In col. 363 this is what he said:
These are not secret treaties. All the trade agreements that Great Britain has entered into are available for public inspection.
The Minister was quite emphatic, definite and clear. To summarise, he made it plain that there were only two treaties that he had in mind and that those treaties were E.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T.
It is for that reason that we seek to place in the Bill precisely those two treaties by way of scheduling them. I am hopeful that the necessary time for reflection having passed, the Minister of State will now see how helpful it would be to all concerned if there was absolute certainty on this point.
"Absolute certainty" picks up the discussion which took place on the last Amendment. I do not need to dwell on it at length, particularly at this hour, but the Minister of State will recall that on both sides it was agreed that it was a duty of this House, wherever possible, to make the state of the law clear to those who might be affected by it. I do not believe that the matter could be more clearly put than it was put in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing at col. 359. With my hon. Friend's consent, I should like to repeat what he said:
I think that the fundamental point which we ought to make is that if business men are to be subject to the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act because the actions which they are taking are in conflict with some treaty, they are entitled to know where they stand. It would be unfair if, because


of treaties which had been signed in the past, or which may be signed in the future, a business man, who perhaps unwittingly was in conflict with one of those treaties, suddenly found that the Board of Trade was able to take action against him on the basis of this Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th May, 1965; c. 351, 363, 359.]
I thought then, and I certainly think now, that that placed the argument in a nutshell.
In Clause 4, we are taking extended powers relating to possible breaches of treaty. There is nothing in the Bill to say what those treaties are. It is surely inherent in our method of dealing with those who are affected by our legislation that we should make it as clear as we can what the law is and what it is that business men, who might possibly breach a treaty, have to avoid and what are the rocks that they must watch out for in the channels ahead.
I have sought to show that, on the Minister's own words, he has only two treaties in mind. Those are the two treaties listed in the new Schedule. I have sought to show that fears and anxieties that there might be other treaties are, on the Minister's own words, not justified. I genuinely believe that the argument stands without any further difficulty or elaboration and I am confident that after mature thought in the period that has since elapsed, the Minister will feel able to accept our Amendments.

Mr. Higgins: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who has so adequately and cogently proposed the Amendment. There are, however, one or two other points which should be brought to the attention of the House, more particularly because this matter was not covered in any detail on Second Reading. Indeed, I am rather uncertain whether it was even mentioned.
When we were in Committee upstairs, it became apparent that the Government's proposals in Clause 4 were extremely important—I described them at the time as something of a Trojan horse—because they introduced into our monopolies legislation what appeared to be the beginnings of international monopolies legislation in that they endeavoured to incorporate into the domestic law of the country arrangements whereby treaties which we had signed with other countries

could be given effect. To this extent it was an extremely important Clause.
Most of my hon. Friends would agree with me when I say that it would be desirable, if it were found that these monopolies were in conflict with one of our treaty obligations, that they should be subject to the sanctions set out in this Bill. Therefore, there is no basic disagreement between the two sides of the House, I believe, on this point. Where we do find very considerable disagreement is on the question of which treaties in particular we are concerned with in this Clause. It is for this reason that my hon. Friends have tabled the Amendments we are discussing.
Before I turn to the detail of them there is one point I should be glad if the Minister of State would clarify. He mentioned in Committee that the Clause was to implement the obligations we had in particular with E.F.T.A. We asked at the time if there were reciprocal arrangements, similar to those in the Bill, in the other E.F.T.A. countries. He was unable to answer at the time. I hope that, in the light of the discussion which we had, he will be able to give us some more positive answer than he gave us on that occasion.
I turn to the Amendments. The first point which needs to be made clear is that, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has said, one feels, if one reads through the speeches of the Minister of State, that there is considerable doubt whether he was merely referring to the E.F.T.A. treaty and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or whether he had some wider scope in mind. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no question of any secret treaties being involved, but that the question is which treaties in particular are to be covered by the Clause. It is for that reason we have suggested we should specify in detail which treaties are covered. The best the Minister of State could do by way of reply, when we queried this first of all, was to say:
We were advised that those were the words which ought to be used in this connection to cover all the trade treaties which this country has entered into. …
This seems to me to be wider than a reference merely to E.F.T.A. and


G.A.T.T. Therefore, I think it is important that we should pursue this matter this evening in the whole House.
The second point which must be made, and should be made very strongly, is that in the debates in Committee it was suggested that somehow if we were to specify the treaties precisely this might encourage certain countries overseas to protest about what British firms were doing, and the implication of this seemed to be—and it was not contradicted—that there might be British firms in conflict with our treaty obligations and the Minister was desirous of omitting from the Bill a list of treaties in order to protect them from such complaints. This seems to me a totally wrong attitude for any Minister in this country to adopt when considering the treaties into which we have entered and an honourable obligation.
The second point which he made appeared to be that there was no need to specify precisely what the treaties were because business men need not know with which treaties they might be in conflict. This, again, as my hon. Friend said, seems to us to be totally wrong, because it means that business men may find themselves suddenly subject to sanctions of the Bill without knowing in advance that they would be subject to them.
12 m.
One of the extraordinary things which emerged in the debates in Committee was, that the hon. Gentleman suggested that the action of the Government might be directed against firms which were going to be caught by the Clause as it now stands. The hon. Gentleman said:
It may be that after the Bill has become law this will be one of the first references to the Monopolies Commission, and it would be improper, for a number of reasons, to mention the case this morning.
Are we to understand from that that we are going to omit from the Bill any specific reference to certain treaties other than those which we specify, and we are then going to find that when the Bill becomes an Act the Government are proposing to take action against a company which the Minister of State or his colleagues have in mind, and in this way they will catch the company? That is a wrong attitude for the Government to adopt in this matter, and I hope that by

accepting one or other of the Amendments the hon. Gentleman will remove any doubt from the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Government adopting an irresponsible attitude of this kind.
There seems no reason why we should not specify in the Bill the actual treaties which are concerned. The hon. Gentleman tended to excuse this with the words:
I am also advised that it was technically difficult, and perhaps not altogether in the public interest, for the whole list of trade treaties and agreements which we have entered into to be published as a Schedule to the Bill …
Later on he said:
I know that that is an unsatisfactory answer, but it is the answer that we have to give to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that it will be accepted by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th May, 1965; c. 360–1.]
Whether or not it was accepted by the Committee, I very much hope that the same unsatisfactory answer will not be accepted by hon. Members tonight, because to say, "I am sorry it is an unsatisfactory answer, but I hope that it will be accepted" is not really the kind of intellectual approach that we expect from the hon. Gentleman, and I hope, therefore, that he will have no hesitation in accepting the Amendments.
The hon. Gentleman will observe that the Amendments are in two forms. The first is that the Clause shall not have effect until such time as the Board of Trade has specified what treaties it has in mind, and the alternative is that we should accept the Schedule which we have added. When we discussed the matter in Committee, it was not possible for the Amendment covering the Schedule to be called, for the rather good reason that we had omitted to put down the Schedule. We have now managed to cover that particular point, and so the Schedule now reads that the two treaties concerned are those which the hon. Gentleman, during most of his speeches upstairs, seemed to say were in his mind, namely, the E.F.T.A. Treaty, and the G.A.T.T.
If the hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendments, it will still be possible to add to the Schedule any further treaties which he feels he would like to cover. We think that this is a matter which


ought to be clarified. We agree with the general principles of the Clause, but we think that it is vitally important that business men should know where they stand in operating within this legislation, and I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the Amendments.

Mr. Peter Emery: I do not have much to say on this Amendment which has been moved so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and supported with his usual clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), but it is important that we should press this matter because the Government did not give an exact undertaking in Committee upstairs. The Minister of State intervened on more than one occasion during our discussions on this topic, and I tried to put forward some alternatives in an effort to help the hon. Gentleman.
It is a nonsense of the most extreme sort that a business may find itself suddenly, when this Bill becomes an Act, subject to the regulations of treaties entered into and unspecified by the Bill, and then suddenly find that because of the rest of Clause 4, line 32 to 36, that where
there has been or is likely to be a breach of or conflict with a treaty, then, for the purposes of remedying or preventing that breach or conflict, the Board may by order exercise all or any of the powers conferred by section 3(2) and (3) of this Act.
Looking in Section 3(2) and (3), we see the whole panoply of powers even down to the price regulation in paragraph (3) which it would be open for the Board of Trade to take. If any Government, whatever its political structure, is to be given the power to take this action with industry, then industry must surely, in common decency and ordinary reasonable understanding of a logical or business approach, have the right to know what these treaties are they could be breaking. As I said in Committee, and I think it is worth repeating, this is much more difficult for the smaller firms. Large firms have staffs in the export market. They have legal departments that are completely au fait with what is going on in international trade. It may well be expected that they will know and possibly cope with this present situation.
But it is not true of the medium entrepeneur, the small business in the Midlands, the small engineering firm, particularly in Reading, my own constituency, where they are attempting to assist in the export drive and indeed are probably over-stretched on their capital resources and staff resources at the moment. They certainly would not have legal departments who would be examining or considering this particular aspect of the Bill.
Therefore, I believe that if one looks at the statement by the Minister of State and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham:
These are not secret treaties. All the trade agreements that Great Britain has entered into are available for public inspection.
As long as that is true, and we have no reason to doubt that the Minister would say anything but what is the case, then indeed there can be no reason for not accepting our Amendment. We have the Schedule there. It will be within the power of the Government to add whatever treaties they want to the Schedule. There are two treaties down at the moment, and the Government would have powers to add to these treaties if they saw fit. Therefore, I hope that they can accept the Amendment. If they cannot, and I would want strong reasons to be given why they could not, would they then accept and give an assurance on the question that I asked during the Committee stage.
Could any company wishing to have a list of all the treaties affecting the operation of the Bill and the regulations obtain this list by application to the Board of Trade? If we could have that understanding, anybody wishing to have such a list could obtain it without any difficulty, although it would not be written into the Bill"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, llth May 1965, c. 364.]
We were given a partial assurance. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, they should state categorically that a firm has this right to go to the Board of Trade and automatically to be provided with a list of the treaties. That is not the best way to deal with the matter; it is a bad second or third best. Someone who picks up the Bill for the first time will not have seen this assurance and will not know of the Board of Trade's intentions in this respect. I therefore urge the Minister to accept the Amendment, which would assist industry in the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said that in Committee I said that I knew that "this was an unsatisfactory answer". After a series of interjections and speeches I tried to say, "I know that this answer will be unsatisfactory to hon. Members opposite"; but I am willing to accept the Report as it appears. I give the hon. Member the assurance that the other E.F.T.A. countries have either introduced similar provisions, or are in the process of doing so, and there would be the reciprocal arrangements about which he asked.
All hon. Members who have spoken have quoted from my speeches in Committee. Added together the quotations have been at some length. One quotation, which is germane, has not been made. I said that we were concerned in the discussion with E.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T., but I continued,
… there are a number of other treaties and trade agreements which come within the definition, which we decided on after full consideration, and a treaty means 'any agreement with a country outside the United Kingdom or the government of such a country, or with any international organisation or authority, being an agreement binding on Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.' We were advised that those were the words which ought to be used in this connection to cover all the trade treaties which this country has entered into, and is likely to enter into, where action as proposed in subsection (1) might be called for to deal with the trade practices of firms which offend against international treaties and agreements.
We are concerned only with firms which have thus offended. I continued,
I am also advised that it was technically difficult, and perhaps not altogether in the public interest, for the whole list of trade treaties and agreements which we have entered into to be published as a Schedule to the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th May, 1965; c. 360.]
We have gone into the matter very carefully. We shall have to stick to this definition, because the Bill refers to trade treaties; and to give a full list would mean a very long Schedule indeed. I am not altogether convinced that it would be helpful even to larger firms, and I do not think that it would be helpful to smaller firms merely to have a long list of the treaties. But I give the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) the assurance for which he asked, that any exporter or person engaged in overseas

trade who wants a list of the treaties may have it. But I hope that the Board of Trade will go much further than giving the applicant the list. What the Board of Trade has to do is to give advice and information on the content of treaties. The Board of Trade must ask the circumstances of the firm, and inquire why it wants the information and what the Board can do to help. The reason for the inquiry may be that the firm feels that it is on the verge of doing something which would be contrary to the terms of the treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party. So the function of the Board of Trade is to give advice—not a list of treaties.
12.15 a.m.
Therefore, for the reasons given in Committee and with the assurance that I have given that the Board of Trade will give all the help possible to people engaged in overseas trade who want information about agreements—not just titles but the content and other helpful information—I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Emery: I do not wish to speak again, but before the hon. Gentleman sits down I want to ask a question. The Minister has said that there is this very long list. We accept that. We are not arguing about that. But I cannot see the difficulty, if this long list exists, between a long list being provided in private and a long list being provided in a Schedule to the Bill. It will save the Board of Trade a lot of trouble if this list is put into the Bill. It seems a complete nonsense to suggest that it is difficult to put a long list into a Schedule to the Bill but that it is easy for the Board of Trade to provide the list. Could the Minister comment on that statement?

Mr. Darling: I had better repeat what was said in our Committee proceedings, reported at column 360 of the Report. I said that I was advised that it was not only technically difficult, but perhaps not altogether in the public interest, to publish the full list.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In spite of his usual courteous approach, I am afraid that the Minister of State has not satisfied those of us on this side of the House who raised the matter. I realise that he repeated the arguments reported in column


360, which naturally we carefully reread before approaching this discussion, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) pointed out, all the trade agreements that Great Britain has entered into are available for public inspection.
There is considerable anxiety on this side of the House about the effect of this upon innocent businessmen and exporters—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are not in Committee and the hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House. If we are to have much more of this we shall be here nest week and not merely this morning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. King): In reply to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House moved the Amendment, and, although we are on Report, the hon. Gentleman who moves an Amendment is in order in replying to the debate.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I generally find myself politely and correctly slapped down by the Chair, and it is for me a refreshing experience to discover that I am in order.
I was about to say that I appreciate that the Minister of State has made two short advances in our direction. The first is this very helpful point about the reciprocity of the other E.F.T.A. countries, which will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who has gone into this point. Secondly, there is the clear assurance that the Board of Trade will make lists of these treaties available, and the advice that goes with them. I understand that the Minister of State has put that forward to the Committee in a genuine spirit and in a desire to help us in the difficulty that we have expressed.
There is, fortunately, another opportunity and another place for this point to be considered further. Speaking for myself, I think we would like to reflect rather more fully on the implications of some of the things that the Minister has said, because I realise that these matters are not as easy of solution as they might appear.
On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 8, line 40, leave out from "be" to end of line 42 and to insert:
laid before Parliament after being made, and, if the order is not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament within the twenty-eight days beginning with that on which it is made, the order shall cease to have effect (but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder).
In reckoning any such period of twenty-eight days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days".
This Amendment changes the procedure under Clause 4 dealing with Orders to honour treaty obligations. Orders that may be made for this purpose are those provided for in Clause 3(2) and Clause 3(3), but not the power to prohibit acquisition provided for in Clause 3(4) and any related powers provided in Clause 3(5) and Clause 3(6).
The Bill as introduced provided for such Orders to be subject to a merely negative Resolution procedure. The Amendment, which I am sure will be accepted by hon. Members on the Opposition side with gratitude, substitutes for this that the Orders should require affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament within 28 days of making the Order. The 28 days procedure is quite common with Orders of this kind. It means that they come into effect because of the need for speed. But unless they have Parliamentary approval within 28 days they lapse.
This of course is that procedure which that Bill already lays down for similar Orders. Under Clause 4, when Orders are made on that basis of that Monopolies Commission report that a monopoly or merger may operate, or operate in part, against that public interest, we think that adequate publicity must be given to the situation in which an Order under Clause 4 may have been passed.
The affirmative Resolution procedure means that there can, in all cases, be a Parliamentary debate when the Order is made. In preparation for that debate publicity will be given, and I hope that


this change, which was more or less what was suggested in Committee, will have the approval of the House.

Mr. John Hall: Although I personally had a little difficulty in following the Minister at the beginning of his speech because he was reading his brief at great speed, nevertheless I have got the gist of what is intended. I can assure him that we do welcome the Amendment. It is an improvement and we shall certainly support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT MERGERS.)

Mr. John Hall: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 37, to leave out "either".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker proposed that we take with this Amendment,

Amendment No. 40, page 9, line 45, leave out from "competition)" to end of line 2 on page 10,

Amendment No. 41, page 10, line 28, leave out from "may" to "be" in line 33,

Amendment No. 58, page 14, line 17, leave out subsection (7),

Amendment No. 60, page 14, line 36, leave out subsection (8).

Mr. Hall: The purpose of these Amendments is to delete subsection (1,b,ii) and take out of the Bill the power to refer to the Commission proposed mergers which involve taking over assets exceeding £5 million. When these Amendments were debated in Committee there was strong support for them from the Government side and the several speeches included those by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). The speeches impressed the Government. The Minister without Portfolio admitted that the figure of £5 million was purely arbitrary and he agreed that there would be considerable difficulty under the Bill as drafted in arriving at the value of the assets. He said that he would consider with the President of the Board of Trade whether the reference should be deleted or the provisions modified.
To quote his words:

I am bound to say that I appreciate, as I think everybody does, the profound difficulties about attempting to explain whether the £5 million figure should be judged on the basis of book values or any other values. Admittedly the figure of £5 million is a completely arbitrary one. Having chosen an arbitrary figure, one appreciates the difficulty of arriving at any scientific basis for determining whether the assets are there or not. I would like to suggest that if the hon. Member for Wycombe would withdraw the Amendment my hon. Friend and I will consider with the President of the Board of Trade, in the light of everything that has been said this morning, what course we ought to propose, either by deleting it or substituting something else or modifying the provisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th May, 1965; c. 422.]
Unfortunately, nothing seems to have come out of these deliberations. This is extremely regrettable, but I am not entirely surprised.
In the circumstances, perhaps one ought to rehearse some of the arguments again. The inclusion of £5 million seems to argue that in some way monopoly is associated with size and size with monopoly. This tends to create the impression that bigness means badness. I am sure that that is not the impression which the Government intended to convey. It would be quite wrong to create that impression.
One of the anomalies which can be created by this provision can be illustrated quite simply. A £6 million company which decided to take over a company with £4 million or £4½ million assets would not be affected and subject to possible reference under the Clause. If however, and this is quite a possibility, a live energetic company with a capital of £4 million or less took over a larger company with assets of £6 million it could be referred under the conditions of the Clause although the resulting assets would be precisely the same in each case.
The definition of the assets is a difficult problem. If it is taken, as apparently it is, according to the definition in the Bill, as the nominal book value this will create a number of problems. Everybody knows that the book value of assets has very little relation to the real value. It might be that in some companies, anticipating the possible effects of the Finance Bill, the book value might have some relation to the actual value, but in many cases we know that book value does not hold any such relationship to the true value.
12.30 a.m.
There is also the danger of holding up desirable mergers because they might be referred on grounds of size. It has been said that it is not the Government's intention to discourage mergers which may well be desirable in the interests of the economy and the efficiency of industry, and some mergers the Government might even wish to encourage if they had the power so to do. But a company wishing to take over another one or more companies, with assets in excess of £5 million, might find its affairs referred by the Board of Trade, and this could have the effect of discouraging a possible merger. I should regard this as an undesirable consequence.
It emerged from the debate in Committee that one of the reasons behind the insertion of the reference to assets of £5 million was the desire to protect companies which might be unwilling parties which, like brides carried screaming to the altar, did not want to be absorbed by another company. One has had cases of this kind in this country in recent years, especially with bids coming from overseas, in which there has been considerable controversy and sometimes the necessity for the Government to intervene or lake an interest. If it is thought necessary to protect companies which may not be willing to be taken over, this is not the proper place for providing that protection. It would be much more appropriate in the Companies Act. We have had the Report of the Jenkins Committee, and I imagine that the Government will, if they can find time, introduce some amending companies legislation arising out of that Report. The Companies Act is a far better place for provisions designed to protect companies subject to take-over bids to which they object. This Bill is not the right place for it.
The Government used another argument. On Second Reading—his words are reported in column 1333 of HANSARD—the Minister of State said that the sheer power of the giant could give rise to a monopoly situation. Although a company, already a large one, perhaps, taking over another company with assets in excess of £5 million might not, even after that absorption, itself create a monopoly or be the subject of formal action under the Bill, it could nevertheless, by

the mere size of the concern, almost create a monopoly position. Examples were given to substantiate that argument. It was said that not only would the size tend to stifle competition but the empire created might be too large for the most efficient use of resources. This was another argument used in support of the idea of investigating the absorption of companies on the ground of size.
The argument that the empire created might be too large for the most efficient use of resources is a strange one to come from right hon. and hon. Members opposite who, by and large, were the creators of the nationalised industries. Are they saying that the creation of large empires of the size of the nationalised industries leads to the inefficient use of resources? If so, I might be tempted to agree, because we have had evidence showing that this is so in many cases. But to use that argument in support of the inclusion in the Bill of the figure of £5 million is to stretch the point a little too far.
There is no point in this provision. It has almost been admitted that there is little point in it. It is a figure snatched out of the air. In a pamphlet produced by certain distinguished colleagues on this side of the House a rather smaller figure was mentioned. I think that £1½ million was given as the possible figure which might be taken into account in the case of a proposed merger.
Of course, it is well to remember that this proposal was made against a quite different background; the background which envisaged the establishment of a Registrar, and, even so, I should not necessarily have agreed with the recommendation in that pamphlet, distinguished though the writers of it may have been. This is an arbitrarily chosen figure and mere size has no relation in practice to a position of monopoly at all.
I do not want to deploy these arguments at any great length, because I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade has heard of them. I am sure he has read of the debates upstairs and knows all the arguments and, having been seized of them upstairs, and the Minister of State having gone so far as to say that he will endeavour to get round the point we are making, will he, although there is at present no Amendment meeting our point, say that he will


consider introducing a suitable Amendment to the Bill in another place?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I will be very brief and should not have intervened at all were I not so bitterly disappointed that the Government insist on sticking to this stupid criterion as a basis for bringing a merger under scrutiny. That the mere matter of size should prompt an investigation, when no question of market domination comes into the issue at all, is something one cannot understand. This is totally wrong and wholly irrelevant to any of the problems with which we are faced today. It has nothing at all to do with modernisation, or efficiency, or making this country more progressive.
It is just old-fashioned suspicion of business—commercial enterprise—in all its forms in general, and of big business in particular. It is very sad to see a Government which professes to be dedicated to the modernisation of the national economy clinging to such out-dated dogma. One can only describe the President in the words that Mr. Harold Wincott uses when he particularly dislikes someone, as "an elderly left-wing parrot".

Mr. Peter Hordern: It is a very sad moment when we come to consider as the criterion for the purpose under discussion a business which is said to be of great size because it has assets of £5 million. What on earth does the President of the Board of Trade mean by assets? Does he mean book value? Does he mean the market value of the assets as quoted on the Stock Exchange? Does he mean the real value of the assets? If that is what he means, then how will he calculate the real assets? Will it be before depreciation; after depreciation?
The whole of this Bill so far has had a very fair hearing both in the Committee and in the House and so far we have dealt with serious eventualities. Now, we are lost in the mists of sheer prejudice. I will not speak more than I can avoid of the prejudice which must be inherent in this proposal, but will try to show how utterly impracticable it is. We have already had a debate on the place of the nationalised industries in relation to the Bill, and whether they should be included in its provisions. During the Second Reading debate he said:

There could be cases where monopoly in this sense is not technically involved, but, nevertheless, the concentration of economic power would be such that the transaction should at least come within the field of public scrutiny."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 1213.]
This is the kind of ludicrous defence which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to make.
If that is so, how can the nationalised industries be excluded from the purview of the Clause? The right hon. Gentleman's memory has already been refreshed by the words of the present Prime Minister on 22nd April, 1948, when he said that if, for instance, the National Coal Board were to make mining machinery, it would be possible to have such activities brought before the Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat a debate on which we have already taken a decision.

Mr. Hordern: I move quickly to my next point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
At the very time when we are encountering more and more opposition in other countries, particularly Common Market countries, when we are seeing the French positively encouraging mergers, we have this absurd provision. Last week the Americans announced the results of a competition to join the "Billionaire Club", something which I would have thought was very dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell). They produced evidence that there are now 69 members of the New York Stock Exchange "Billionaire Club"—companies with annual sales or revenues of 1,000 million dollars or more. Such companies in the United States are pleased to be big. What is wrong with size anyway? Why should we be so pathetic about it? It is time the other side of the House grew up and realised that we are living in a big world. This is not the age of the cottage industry. What does the right hon. Gentleman want to do? Why does he not fragment industry into tiny parts or bring us back into the world—

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the requirement of the Bill in respect of large businesses with assets worth £5 million


or more does not imply that the Board of Trade would refuse such a merger? All it means is that the Board of Trade will have an opportunity to make sure that such a merger takes place in the national interest. Also, whereas in the past people used to get knighted for the kind of things for which the Americans send their businessmen to gaol—I do not think that our Bill has gone quite that far—has not the time come for our businessmen to realise that there is such a thing as the national interest on the question of mergers?

Mr. Hordern: On the second point, I do not know to which aspect the hon. Gentleman is directing himself—gaol or knighthood. But he has not made any point of substance.
The right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members opposite must grow up and realise that we are in a world of increasing competition and increasing size of concerns. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) entering the Chamber. I know his views on this subject, and I very much hope that he will voice them during this debate.
This is a lamentable procedure. It means ultimately that the President of the Board of Trade wants us to return to a sort of Jean Jacques Rousseau existence, a cottage industry existence, with La Nouvelle Heloise in person sitting on the Government Front Bench. That is the kind of thing that we are faced with. The President of the Board of Trade and, no doubt, the Minister of Public Building and Works will be constructing "Le petit Hameau" again in this country to make little cottage industries.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Maxwell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to use a foreign language in this debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was almost inclined to intervene to translate what the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) was saying. He has, however, so far merely mentioned the titles of one or two French books and the name of part of Versailles. So far he is in order.

Mr. Hordern: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am about to conclude.

I am flattered that you should recognise my expressions and place them so accurately.
I am in despair in trying to allude to something reasonable and sensible in these late 1960s. We are in a competitive world and it is high time that the Government woke up to realise what an absurd notion they are trying to put into what is otherwise a very respectable and important Bill.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Like my hon. Friends, I feel strongly on this matter, but unlike them I make no apology for speaking at length. I would have no qualms about speaking at great length on the subject. The President of the Board of Trade has been kind enough to say that we look alert, vigorous and fresh. I would expend every ounce of vigour and alertness on the discussion of the Clause and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take as much time as he wishes in expounding the arguments in support of the Government's proposal to keep the figure of £5 million in the Bill.
This is one of the most important provisions of the Bill. It is perhaps unfortunate that we are taking it at this hour but as we are let us deal with it with the emphasis its importance demands. It is one of the new departures in the Bill compared with the principal Act. It is a departure with which I have not a great deal of sympathy. Because the Government's arguments in support of it have been sketchy and because I dislike it so much. I have endeavoured to examine carefully and in detail just what has been said by hon. Members opposite in support of the proposal.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this in the most general terms. In answer to a query from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) he said that it applied to foreign firms with the same provisions, in effect, that it would to firms in this country. But in Committee I think that it was denied that this was the underlying reason for the figure.
Perhaps a case could be made out for this if it were to give control or some sort of supervision over take overs by foreign firms but apparently that is not the main underlying reason. It is therefore only incidental that the proposal applies to this kind of take over. The


right hon. Gentleman, on Second Reading, referred to the "size of assets" concept. I have looked in vain for any development of this concept of the danger, presumably, of the size of assets. We must adjust our minds to changing values. Not only are units getting bigger but, regrettably, money values are changing. The figure of £5 million these days is comparatively small.
There is another point which cannot commend this proposal to us—the use of the word "arbitrary". My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has referred to its use in Committee by the Minister without Portfolio. It was also used by the Minister of State on Second Reading in replying to the debate. I would like to quote what he said in full but, in order to reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after my early remarks, comparatively briefly. The hon. Gentleman said:
The figure of £5 million is arbitrary; we accept that. We went through the list of mergers over the last five years and did a little separating of the sheep from the goats. It seemed that £5 million was a very satisfactory figure where the merger did not lead to a monopoly situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 1333.]
I emphasise that last sentence. May I ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is going to reply, a very satisfactory figure in relation to what? This is what puzzles us on this side of the House. What is it that this figure is as satisfactory in relation to? It can only be that it is at this sort of figure that inhibitions against size begin to operate on the other side of the House. If this is the case, then I certainly am waiting to be persuaded on this. But this has not been advanced in explicit terms, despite the fact that it is one of the major new provisions in the monopoly legislation in the Bill.
We come again to the reply of the Minister without Portfolio in Committee, to which I would draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. This was one of the major debates in Committee and it was given one of the briefest replies from the Government Front Bench of almost any discussion that took place. The Minister without Portfolio wound up by saying:
… the Minister of State and I feel we should have an opportunity before attempting

to answer this debate, to consult the President of the Board of Trade on everything that has been said this morning, to see whether any other course ought to be taken to deal with this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th May, 1965; c. 421.]
I want to convince the House that I am not laying undue emphasis upon this point. I would draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that his own side expressed the most direct doubts about giving support to this Clause. The comments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in Committee have just been referred to. I was looking for the arguments in support of this proposal and I happened by chance to read the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne on Second Reading. I felt able, after reading it, to say that should we reach Third Reading tonight I might be able to condense some of my remarks by referring to what he said then. He spoke most explicitly on this and so did other hon. Members on his side.
I would, therefore, ask the President of the Board of Trade to give us a full explanation in support of this Clause in the Bill which, up to now, the House have been denied. I assure him we shall not grudge him one moment of the time and we shall listen with very great interest to what he says. Unless some arguments are produced which are clearer and stronger than have been produced, I certainly will feel that this Clause will do far more damage than good and that this figure is so arbitrary as almost to have been plucked from the air because someone felt that somewhere there should be reference to size, otherwise a lot of dearly-held shibboleths were going to be abandoned, and this would cause grief in certain quarters.

Sir John Eden: Before I make a few remarks on this series of Amendments I have an interest to declare in that I am associated with a company which exists to promote and encourage mergers in industry. I view with some concern, the same degree of concern already expressed by my hon. Friends, the limitation likely to arise in a number of cases during the course of any one year as a result of the inclusion of this figure. I take the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) a moment


ago, that this gives power to the President of the Board of Trade to refer such a merger involving the take-over of assets of £5 million or over, to the Commission. It does not necessarily follow that such a reference will be made.
The trouble which is apparent throughout this part of the Bill is the mixing up of mergers and monopolies, the idea that at some stage, almost automatically, a merger becomes a monopoly and the idea, following on from that, that almost automatically a monopoly is something harmful. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. I do not think that it is what they have in mind.
I was extremely surprised that the Government did not put down their own Amendments along these lines for this stage of the Bill. Anybody who has studied the proceedings in Committee must be astonished, in the light of the undertaking, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, given by the Minister without Portfolio, that no Amendment has been put forward on Report by the President of the Board of Trade to delete the figure of £5 million. What was in the mind of the Government when they persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) to withdraw his Amendment if it were not to look again at their original proposals and to come forward at this stage with an Amendment to meet the objections of both sides of the House?
One further point is that even though, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, there were in 1964 about 17 instances involving mergers when assets of £5 million or more were taken over, in the context in which it was said this may be considered to be a comparatively small number when one takes into account the total number of mergers throughout industry year in and year out. What I object to, and what, I am sure, all my hon. Friends object to, is that by fixing the figure arbitrarily at such a low level as £5 million and by placing an upper limit at too low a level, the Government are guilty of reversing the trend and are generally discouraging the process towards the creation in British industry of larger units.
Because, as I believe, that is not what the Government want to happen, either they must be prepared to accept our Amendments or they must have much

better reasons for imposing the £5 million limit than those advanced in Committee, when their arguments were weak and were indicative that this was a purely arbitrary figure without basic justification.
I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will accept our Amendments. I hope that, in accepting them, he will take the opportunity to emphasise that in doing so he is seeking to give every positive encouragement that he can to worthwhile, sensible, logical mergers in industry to ensure the increasing strength of our manufacturing units to make certain that Britain, through the strengthening of her economy, can become more competitive than she now is. This, I am sure, is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade. His ambition would be greatly strengthened if he accepted our Amendments.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Higgins: It is quite clear from the strength of the opposition aroused on this side of the House that this Amendment is concerned with the major point of principle in this Bill. Throughout our monopolies legislation it has been recognised that the criterion of a monopoly is whether it controls the supply of a good or service sufficiently to act against the public interest through price rises, and so on. It is because this Clause is a major precedent in our monopolies legislation that we on this side feel it should be examined with the greatest interest and care. It is true that we went into this question in Committee, and I think we examined it in such a way that no reasonable person could feel other than that he should support this Amendment. As we have not had an opportunity of hearing the President of the Board of Trade on this matter we look forward to the benefit of cogent argument by him about why he feels that this extremely unfortunate Clause should remain in the Bill.
There are really three possible cases where control of supply is a relevant and, indeed, an important consideration. The first of these is where we get a horizontal monoply with a particular firm occupying more than one-third of the market in the supply of goods at a particular level of production. I think everyone would agree that in this case the one-third share criterion is a reasonable one.


The second one is where we have vertical integration, a firm integrating backwards to the sources of raw materials and forwards to the resources of retail outlets. Here it became clear that there is no danger to the public interest unless at some stage of production the firm were to occupy more than one-third of the market and able to control supply so as to act against the public interest.
There was, however, one final case which was discussed in some detail by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), who suggested that there might be a case of an existing monopolist in the sense of having a one-third share of the market who began to diversify into some other market. He suggested that unless we accepted the £5 million criterion he would not be caught. However, I think it will be agreed that Clause 6 (1,b) covers this sort of case, either as it stands, or by the Government's later Amendment, if we agree to it, by which that one-third share of the market could be written in in place of subsection (1,b). It is true that, because this covers supply of any goods, if we have a monopolist, in the normal sense, diversifying into some activity in which he is not a monopolist, in the sense of having a one-third share of the market, he will still be caught by the Bill.
Therefore, we must ask the President of the Board of Trade to explain why the Government insist on maintaining this dogmatic approach to the definition of monoply when a merger is likely to be investigated. We suggest to him as strongly as we are able that the basis on which he has put forward the valuation in this Clause is quite absurd. My hon. Friends put forward, with great cogency, the argument that the book value of the assets, which, we understand, is to be used in this case, is completely arbitrary. Arbitrary? Indeed, meaningless. Because the value of the money with which the assets were purchased at different dates has changed from one date to another.
Therefore, what the Government are really saying in this Bill is that one adds up the value of the assets which were purchased perhaps in 1890, when the £ was worth a certain amount, then one adds up the value of the assets purchased in 1900, when the £ was worth something different, one then does the same for

assets purchased in the 'twenties and the 'thirties, up to the present day, and finally one says that the total is a given sum. However, the amounts which are added up are all expressed in terms of £5 million which represent totally different values in terms of real assets, and the figure at the end is a complete nonsense. It is not only a nonsense, but it is an arbitrary nonsense, because, under the criteria laid down by the Board of Trade, the Bill as it stands means that the older firms which bought assets long ago, even though they may have repaired them from time to time and invested large sums of money by way of repairs, will be less open to investigation than the newer firms. One may disagree with the Government's attitude towards the elderly and perhaps the old-age non-pensioners, but to introduce legislation which favours the older firm in this way is not only a nonsense, but an arbitrary nonsense.
There is another important point to be made here. We appear to be suffering from government by schizophrenics, because the argument advanced by the Treasury Bench last week when discussing Clause 78 of the Finance Bill, which was concerned with forestalling, was that book values were impossible to compute and therefore we must rely on share value. Tonight, on this Bill, we are told that book values are a reasonable measure of capital employed. There is a complete inconsistency between the attitude adopted by the Government one week and that adopted by them the next.
The fortunate thing is that there is one link between the Front Bench finance group of last week and the Government this evening, namely, the Minister without Porfolio. One cannot help feeling that it is unfortunate that he does not have a portfolio of definitions to carry from one Ministry to the other, because we cannot sensibly debate this kind of Measure, nor can we sensibly debate the Report stage of the Finance Bill, unless we have a clear and categoric answer from the Government about whether they think that book values are a reasonable measure of capital employed, and I hope that we shall get a clear answer to that today.
If, as was suggested by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, they are not a clear indication, then the Government


should accept the Amendments. If they are, then surely they should amend Clause 78 of the Finance Bill. I hope that in replying to this debate the right hon. Gentleman will not only concern himself with the important point of principle that we have raised, but will give a clear and categoric answer about whether they think that book values mean anything or not.

Mr. Jay: I agree that this is a legitimate issue to raise in the discussion on this Bill, and that it is an important point. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Member for High Wycombe—

Mr. John Hall: Wycombe.

Mr. Jay: I think that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is a little hard to please. Earlier today, when I was pointing out in another instance that previous Governments had done what we were doing, he said that we ought not to give any weight to that because we ought to be doing something different from what was done on previous occasions. Here we are doing something new, and therefore, on his argument, he ought to approve of it on that ground alone.

Mr. John Hall: We welcome the Government doing something new which is positive and useful. We do not welcome them doing things which are wrong.

Mr. Jay: I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should decide the matter on its merits, because that underlines the point that he put before us earlier today.
Let us examine the merits of the case. The first point is that all that this size of asset test is being used for in this Bill is as a qualifying test to bring mergers within the field of scrutiny. Of course, if it were a test which was going to result in automatic condemnation of the merger, then this would not be a justifiable test to use. What hon. Members opposite are asking is that we should exclude a merger on grounds of the size of assets altogether even from scrutiny under the Bill. If they do not realise that, they do not really understand the Bill they are discussing, and that is what I thought led at least one hon. Member below the Gangway to talk a certain amount of rubbish just now.
We are not arguing that all mergers are bad any more than that all are good.

Nor are we arguing that size in itself is bad. But hon. Members appear to be arguing that size in itself is good. If the hon. Member is arguing that size is good he is taking an extreme point of view. I believe the sensible, intelligent and realistic assumption here is that size is sometimes good and size is sometimes bad. If that is true then at least it ought to be brought within that field of scrutiny, which we are doing.

Mr. Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the argument is that size should necessarily be either good or bad. If he is saying that size in itself is bad, surely his argument must be that smallness of itself is rather good. That is the argument he is deploying.

Mr. Jay: What I am arguing is that size may be sometimes good and sometimes bad, and therefore it should be brought within the field of scrutiny. The hon. Member believes in the monopoly test for scrutinising a merger. He does not believe that monopolies are always good or always bad. If, therefore, he thinks that because they are sometimes good and sometimes bad they should come within the field of scrutiny, it follows that if he agrees that size is sometimes good and sometimes bad, then size should come within the field of scrutiny also, otherwise there is no logic in the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Higgins: I think we agree that size is sometimes good and sometimes bad. What we are saying on this side is that whether it is good or bad depends on what share of the relevant market it happens to have. This is the right and proper criterion for deciding whether or not it needs to be scrutinised.

Mr. Jay: I am coming to that point, but I am glad we have made some progress and that hon. Members, even those below the Gangway, agree with me that size is sometimes good and sometimes bad and therefore should come within the field of scrutiny.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Jay: I think I had better finish my argument and then hon. Members may be able to reflect upon it.
The next question that arises, therefore, is—how should we calculate size or


domination of the market in order to bring these mergers within the field of scrutiny? There are two strong reasons for adding this size of assets test to the share of the market about which we are all agreed. The first is that this certainly does give us some control, which we have not at present, over foreign takeover bids of British companies. That in itself is not the sole reason, but I think it is one important reason for at least giving us the powers to act in a case of this kind.
We have in recent years in the House discussed, for instance, the take-over bid of some Trinidad Oil assets. We also discussed a take-over bid by Chrysler for Rootes only within the past year. I am not saying that either of these take-overs was undesirable or that they were desirable. We ought to have the power to act in such a case.
1.15 a.m.
I am not one of those who deplore all foreign investment in this country. We need foreign investment in this country, particularly when it takes the form of the creation of new productive assets such as the building of factories in the under-employed areas. But foreign investment which takes the form of the acquisition under foreign control of assets already existing here is quite a different issue. If it takes place beyond a certain size and brings under control industrial assets of great importance in this country, then at least it should come under scrutiny and the British Government should have power to examine it.
Some hon. Members may think that we already possess this power through the operation of the Exchange Control Act. We have examined that legislation, and the fact is that we do not possess the power to interfere with foreign take-over bids under that legislation because it could be done only on foreign exchange control grounds. We are, therefore, justified in introducing this test if only on the argument of possible take-overs of companies in this country. But there is also the argument on the ground of a takeover by one United Kingdom company of another. An evil could certainly arise from too great a domination of the market by one enterprise.
There is also such a thing as excessive concentration of economic power in the

hands of one private group. If hon. Members opposite do not realise that, then I am afraid that there is a direct disagreement between us. There could be a company which held a considerable share of the market—not quite qualifying under the one-third rule—in a number of separate commodities or services. It could build up a further empire without at any point going quite over the line in a single commodity. An empire not merely of great size but of great power could be created in that way. We ought to have power to decide whether this is in the public interest.
Let us not forget all the way through that all we are doing is to give the Board of Trade power to refer these cases to the Commission. It is possible for the Board of Trade not to refer them if it sees no reason for doing so, and even if they are referred it is possible for the Commission to come to the conclusion that they are justified.

Mr. Maxwell: We need to look at the question of monopoly anew. A company in the United Kingdom may well be on the way to becoming very large for the market, but in relation to the foreign competition which it faces abroad it will be very small. We on this side of the House are satisfied that the powers which the Government are seeking are right, necessary and justified, but I—and industry, too—would very much like an assurance that when examining these cases the Board of Trade will take into consideration the competitiveness of the enterprise vis-à-vis its foreign competitors. The President of the Board of Trade does not require me to stress that exporting is very important to us. Would he give Ian assurance on that point?

Mr. Jay: I assure my hon. Friend that not only should we take that into account but I have taken it into account in the past six months. The Board of Trade, in deciding whether to refer a case, and the Commission, in examining a case which had been referred to it, would have that as one of the major factors in mind.
Hon. Members opposite talked about shibboleths and used other similar emotional language, but they seem to have forgotten the case of I.C.I. and Courtaulds, and the controversial debate which we had on that subject in the House. I would remind them that in that debate quite a number of hon. Members


of their own party took the view that if it were possible it would have been right, had it not happened of its own accord, for the Government to step in and prevent that proposed merger going through—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Jay: I must finish this argument—even though in that case a technical monopoly under the 1948 Act legislation might not have been created. If hon. Gentlemen do not realise this, they have not studied that case very carefully. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House who were critical of that merger were critical not because it created a technical 30 per cent. monopoly of any particular commodity but because it gave too great an economic power over a wide area of industry to one concern. Therefore, when hon. Members use expressions like "shibboleths" they should reflect upon that case.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He recognises, of course, that Courtaulds has now been referred to the Monopolies Commission under the old legislation? There is no question of size or anything of that sort coming into it.

Mr. Jay: I realise that perfectly well because I referred it myself. The hon. Member would do well to listen to the argument before jumping up so often. I did not say that it was technically impossible to refer that merger under the old legislation. I said that most people who were critical of it would have thought it ought to have been referred even if it had not been possible under the old legislation. That proves the case that we are making, that economic power and domination of this kind should at least come within the field of scrutiny as well as the technical old-fashioned monopoly definition.
The other point which has been raised, and rightly so, is the question of book values. The Bill as it stands and as we intend it to stand certainly makes book values the criterion in this case. Of course, I agree that book values are not a true or accurate measure of existing market values. Again, if this is to be made the criterion of some automatic condemnation of a merger, book values would be a very unsatisfactory test to take. But they are not being so used.

They are merely being used as a criterion for bringing the merger, as I say, within the field of examination. For this purpose it is not necessary to have a perfect and accurate measure. It is necessary to have a measure which can be quickly ascertained so that there is not a long delay in deciding whether to go ahead with a reference or not.
The merit of book values for this purpose is that there is here a figure which is quickly, easily and indisputably ascertainable. For this purpose I think this is the most satisfactory measure, and if there were any more satisfactory one, presumably hon. Members opposite, who have been so critical of this Clause, and of the measure, would have found it out after three months and would have put forward an Amendment. For this purpose I think this is a legitimate measure and I think the case is overwhelmingly for retaining the Bill in its present form.

Mr. John Hall: During the debates in Standing Committee I often had occasion, when rising after the Minister had spoken, to say that I was disappointed with his reply. I find myself in precisely the same position tonight. It was a disappointing reply.
Perhaps I could put one matter right because I am sure that what was said on the point was said inadvertently. We are not critical of the Measure if by "Measure" the President of the Board of Trade meant the Bill. We have throughout supported the Bill. All that we have done is to try to improve it and I think these efforts have been recognised.
The President of the Board of Trade in beginning his speech addressed me as the "hon. Member for High Wycombe". I would point out that the word "High" is as unnecessary and unwanted, as an addition to the word "Wycombe", which is the division that I represent, as these words are unwanted and unnecessary in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman deployed the usual arguments that we have heard before. The strongest one was the point he made that the Government wanted to have some control over take-over bids, whether they were foreign or domestic. He quoted the case of I.C.I./Courtaulds, in which the figure was considerably in excess of the figure in the Bill. He did not address himself to the suggestion I


made during the course of my own remarks, that the protection given in cases of this kind to companies that might be subject to takeover bids might be better given under an amended Companies Act, which no doubt will follow in due course, rather than in this Bill.
The other point the President of the Board of Trade made was that one has to be careful of excessive concentration of power. Why are we frightened of size in this country? My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) made this point. We are being rapidly overtaken by concentrations of industrial power in Europe, and there are places where there is a far greater concentration of power than we can command. Why should we be afraid of companies growing larger and larger and being able to compete successfully with some of our competitors and some of the overseas industrial empires? The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) seemed to support me on this point of view. He was referring to difficulties that might arise in the export market when up against large concentrations of industrial power.

Mr. Jay: One of the arguments that was put some years ago for doing away with that nationalised Iron and Steel Corporation was that it had been growing to an excessive size and that was supposed to be leading to inefficiency.

Mr. Hall: All I am really asking is why the President should be frightened by size. This Bill is concerned with monopolies and with a sharing of a market that is known to exist, what is regarded as the right share of that market and whether the situation could lead to a monopoly. What we are concerned with is not the question of size. Even if size were the subject concerning us, and we really did have to take it into account, the figure of £5 million is not the figure to write into the Bill. It is far too low. It may have been right in prewar days but not now.
I should think that if one wanted to put a figure into the Bill it ought to be at least twice that amount. We know that the figure of £5 million has just been plucked out of the air. It could have been £1 million, £8 million or £10 million, but someone said let us compromise

and take the halfway house figure of £5 million. This is no way to arrive at a figure in a Clause that is to be written into a Bill. Much more attention should be given to the figure.
During the Committee stage, as the President knows, his hon. Friends were critical of this provision in the Bill. I quote just two examples in speeches which were made by hon. Members whose names I have already mentioned during the course of this debate.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said in col. 415:
Everything is changing."—
he is right there—
What we are trying to do is to legislate for the past, and despite everything that has been said about competition, there are grave limits to it because sooner or later in a very small country we shall find that the size of these units will come up against the monopoly regulations that we are pinning down on them, and sooner or later there will be a tussle between the advantages of large-scale industry, which I have tried to show are very much greater than anybody has previously imagined, and the very great disadvantages of competition for which there is the possibility of hope that there may be some alternative in the future.
The hon. Member went on to say:
If we look at this Clause, the value of it is so small that I would urge my hon. Friend to look at it again and see if he can meet some of our objections.
The other hon. Member I wish to quote is the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), whose contributions to our debates in Committee were valuable and based on professional experience. He said:
Taking up the point of the definition of £5 million, I am far from happy with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th May, 1965; c. 415–8.]
Neither were we. That was the understatement of the morning. We are still very unhappy with it. Nevertheless, it seems we cannot persuade the Minister at this stage to change this. One has to accept it until such time as we get a change in companies legislation that will enable him to use a kind of control over foreign and domestic bids. We do not propose to press this to a Division. I cannot hide from the right hon. Gentleman our discontent and disquiet at his refusal to accept the Amendment on this occasion.

Amendment negatived.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 9, to leave out from "result" to "prevail" in line 39 and to insert "the following conditions".
I think that we are taking with it Amendments Nos. 39, 42 and 43.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. Do I understand now that we are taking other Amendments with this one? I had not realised that we were taking other Amendments with it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): No other Amendment has been selected for discussion with this Amendment. Amendment No. 37 is the only one selected for discussion at present.

Mr. Jay: Very well, I will deal with this Amendment. It is intended to remove an anomaly in the Bill as drafted. It refers to the definition of what is a separate undertaking for the purpose of deciding what is a merger which should be referred to the Commission. Under the Bill as drafted, and after the decision which the House has just taken, it is possible to refer a merger to the Commission on one of two criteria—either on the ground of the existence of a monopoly by the 1948 definition or alternatively on the ground of the size of the assets, as we have just decided.
As the Bill stands, however, a different definition of what constitutes separate enterprises for this purpose would be adopted according to whether the size of assets test or the monopoly test was being adopted. If the size of assets test was adopted the definition of an enterprise would be not just that of being an interconnected body corporate as laid down in the Companies Act but would involve the wider question of de facto control introduced by the Bill. If, on the other hand, the monopoly test was adopted there would be the narrower definition of the inter-connected bodies corporate as defined in the Companies Act.
There is no good or logical reason for using different definitions in these cases and therefore we propose by the Amendment to bring the second definition into line with the first, that is to say we should apply the criterion of de facto control both for the size of assets test and the monopoly test. This seems to me more

logical and reasonable and to give us a more satisfactory Clause.

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friends and I are in some confusion. Am I right in thinking that we are concerned here only with Amendment No. 37?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Amendment No. 37 is the only one selected at this point. If it is for the convenience of the House, and the House agrees, it would be in order to discuss the other Amendments at the same time.

Mr. Jay: All the other Amendments concerned are Government Amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, if I may presume so far upon your selection, I take it that they are all selected, and, for the purposes of rational debate, I think that they go together. Indeed, I could not help referring to them in my own argument. I gather that hon. Members opposite agree that it is really necessary to take Amendments Nos. 39, 42 and 43 with Amendment No. 37 which I have moved.

Mr. Maxwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can you tell me, a new Member, why the debate on this Bill, which has been agreed by both sides of the House, as far as I know, is being carried on all over again and why so many Amendments have been chosen?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. John Hall: If it would not be out of order, I could reply at some length to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) and explain why there are so many Amendments down on Report. Briefly, the reason is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite and we have co-operated in finding methods of improving the Bill, and this has made it necessary to put down a number of Amendments at this stage.
It is a little difficult to follow the purpose of Amendment No. 37 without looking at the other Amendments to which the President of the Board of Trade referred. When I first looked at it I thought I understood what it meant. After I heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I decided that I did not know at all. Nevertheless, on the basis that, in fact, it means what I originally


thought it meant, I should not, despite the explanation, wish to oppose Amendment No. 37.
I am not sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we are taking Amendments No. 39, 42 and 43 at the same time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we agreed that we would discuss all four Amendments together.

Mr. Hall: If that is so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I echo what I said earlier. Having looked at these Amendments as best I could, and having tried to follow the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, there is nothing I wish to add. As far as I can see, they are not objectionable, although I cannot see that they are particularly advantageous.

Mr. Jay: They are very good indeed.

Mr. Hall: "Very good indeed" says the President of the Board of Trade. As I always accept everything he tells the House, and as I am ready to accept his guarantee that the Amendments are designed to improve the Bill—one of the few occasions on which Government Amendments have that effect—I am prepared to accept them as they stand.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I wish to raise a point of substance which has been brought to my attention by Clause 68 of the Finance Bill. Two companies could form a partnership which could have the same effect as a merger, but a company partnership seems, rather strangely, not to be covered by the Bill as originally drafted or as now to be amended.
Clause 6, (1,b) refers to the conditions to which the principal Act applies, and Section 3(2) of that Act refers to
Where two or more persons conduct their affairs in such a way …
and so on. As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 39 is not to alter that position at all. That is to say, each enterprise, as I understand it, must have
… at least one-third of the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom …
etc. In those circumstances, if two companies decided not to merge and become one enterprise but instead, remained two separate undertakings and engaged

in a partnership, then it would be a matter of doubt if the Board of Trade would have any power at all.
If this be the case, then no doubt the Government would wish to introduce a suitable Amendment in another place. At the same time it is strange that we should be adopting the damaging test of the £5 millions take-over but leaving out of account mergers between really enormous concerns which may result in market domination and which should have been brought within the scrutiny of the Bill.

Sir J. Eden: Might I ask for guidance on what may be a matter of drafting because as things are they may lead to confusion? Amendment No. 38, I understand, is not called, but to my somewhat sluggish brain at this hour of the morning, if it is not called, Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 do not make sense because there would be left in line 39 on page 9 the words
or do so to a greater extent".
Is that the intention of the Government? As I understand it, if Amendment No. 37 is accepted it will have the effect of leaving out the words from "result" in line 38 to "prevail" in the next line, with the insertion of the words, "the following conditions". So the result would be that the Bill would read,
as a result the following conditions or do so to a greater extent …
Is that not so? [Interruption.] I still do not follow it. What would be the amended sentence without the inclusion of Amendment No. 38, which is not being called?

Mr. Jay: The answer to the second intervention is broadly this; Amendments Nos. 37, 39, 42 and 43 are Government Amendments. Amendment No. 38 is not a Government Amendment and, in any case, does not hang with the other four. It is not necessary, therefore, that it should be moved or approved in order to make sense of those four. Amendments Nos. 37, 39, 42 and 43 do hang together and have the substantive effect which I tried to explain to the House in my first contribution to the debate. If the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) looks at Clause 9 (3, c) he will find the words,
persons carrying on partnership and the husband or wife and relatives of any of them;


I am advised that this covers his point and does not leave partnerships unaccounted for.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This is covering persons associated with one another, but that does not come into Clause 6. So far as I see it, that does not come in at all. Where persons are associated it is right that they should be dealt with as such, but here we are dealing with two or more enterprises which can cease to be distinct enterprises.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He cannot make a second speech. He can make an intervention, but not speak a second time.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Jenkin: I will try to be as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of debate. Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I draw the line at a point of order—as we are not in Committee, is it competent for the House to go on discussing and wrangling about marginal points when hon. Gentlemen appointed by Her Majesty's Opposition have already notified the House of their acceptance of the Government Amendments on the Notice Paper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "a point of debate".

Mr. Jenkin: Can the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point whether "two distinct enterprises" would cover two companies in partnership?

Mr. Jay: If I may give an answer and not make a speech, the answer is that I am advised that the words that I read out from Clause 9(3) are relevant to Clause 6. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 9(1), which I think will make this apparent, but since he has raised the point I will check to confirm that what I am saying is correct.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am sorry to have to rise again. I had prepared a long speech on Amendment No. 39, but in the circumstances I shall curtail it. However, there are one or two things which are not very clear. I had hoped that we might have had something further about the ex-territorial aspects of the matter, but it appears that that is not covered by these Amendments. Will the President

say whether the long and quite definite points made during the Committee stage are intended to be covered by any of the Government Amendments? It appears that they are not. I thought that the Government had said that they would try to deal with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was to have dealt with Amendment No. 42, and I will ask a question to which he desired an answer. There are references to different forms of supply and to supply taken separately. Is this necessary or relevant? Why does it matter whether a supply is taken separately or not? My hon. Friend was not clear about that, and when it is put to me quickly, I am not clear about it.
In the same way, why in order to cover the whole of these Amendments is the inclusion of "20(3)" necessary? It seems that this adds nothing. I cannot see why it is necessary. But we will not prolong the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) has left the Chamber after one of his—

Mr. J. T. Price: I am still here.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Price: I will raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—a valid point of order, I think. Can the debate be continued when the Opposition Front Bench speaker, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), has already indicated to my right hon. Friend that he accepts the Government Amendments on the Notice Paper? The debate has continued and we are speaking with discordant voices on the same matters which are still under discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no reason why the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) should not exercise his right to speak. He has not spoken before on this Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I was saying that I was sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham had paid one of his lightning incursions into the Chamber, interjected and gone out again—a habit for which he is becoming famous—because this point illustrates the matter he raised.
We make no pretence that this is a simple matter. The hon. Member for


Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) knows that it is complex. He served on the Standing Committee and he knows that the point was not properly covered there. We had believed that these Amendments would be taken differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) dealt particularly with Amendment No. 37. I have been asked to deal with Amendment No. 39.

Mr. J. T. Price: rose—

Mr. Emery: Let us press on. This is important. At this hour I am not going to get factious. I am posing three questions to the President of the Board of Trade. If he can answer me perhaps we can proceed to the next Amendment.

Sir Eric Fletcher: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade having exhausted his right to speak—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Minister in charge of the Bill has not exhausted his right to speak if he wishes to do so.

Sir Eric Fletcher: Whether he has exhausted his right to speak or not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps, having started, I may try to satisfy, indirectly through the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Emery), the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) who also has not, I believe, exhausted his right. Indeed, he has not spoken at all but nevertheless tried to raise a point vicariously.
The question was as to why it is necessary to incorporate under this Amendment the provisions of Section 3(3) of the 1948 Act. The explanation is simple. As hon. Members are interested, perhaps I should try to spell it out for their convenience. The Act went to the trouble of analysing the conditions in which supply of goods takes place in order to make sure that there was complete coverage. Section 3(3) says:
Where goods of any description are the subject of different forms of supply, the references in the preceding provisions of this section to the supply of the goods … shall be construed as references to any of those forms of supply taken separately, to all those forms of supply taken together, or to any of those forms of supply taken in groups, according as the Board of Trade or the Commission, as the case may be, think proper in all the circumstances;".

That was to ensure that there should be proper coverage of the supply of goods.
In this Bill we are extending the operation of the monopolies complex both to services and to mergers. It is, therefore, necessary in order to ensure conformity with the provisions of the 1948 Act, that there should be an Amendment to extend the provisions of Section 3(3), to all services affected by Clause 2(5)(b), and in order to avoid any possible ambiguity it is desirable that that should be made absolutely explicit. I hope that explanation will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment ageed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 41, leave out from "description" to "or" in line 45 and insert:
that is to say, as respects the supply of goods of any description, at least one-third of the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom or any substantial part thereof are supplied by or to any one person, or by or to the persons by whom the enterprises (so far as they continue to be carried on) are carried on, or, as respects the supply of services of any description, the supply of services of that description in the United Kingdom or any substantial part thereof is, to the extent of at least one-third, by or for any one person, or by or for the persons by whom the enterprises (so far as they continue to be carried on) are carried on".

In page 10, line 37, leave out "7 to 9 and 12" and insert "3(3), 7 to 9, 12 and 20(3)".

In page 10, line 38, after "Act", insert:
as modified by the foregoing provisions of this Act".—[Mr. Jay.]

Mr. Peter Emery: I beg to move, Amendment No. 44, in page 11, line 2, to leave out "to make their report" and insert:

(a) to make a preliminary report on the matter referred within two months of its being referred stating whether (subject to subsection (3) above) subsection 1 (a) and (b) above are satisfied and if the Commission find they are satisfied, whether there is prima facie evidence warranting further investigation that the fact of the enterprises having ceased, in the circumstances of the case, to be distinct enterprises, operates or may be expected to operate against the public interest; and
(b) if the Commission find that there is prima facie evidence, to make their final report.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment No. 50, in page 12, line 12, after "may", insert:
at any time before the Commission makes its preliminary report on the reference under subsection (5) (a) above".


and Amendment No. 51, in page 12, line 22, leave out "report is laid before Parliament" and insert:
preliminary report is made under subsection (5) (a) above".

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) will be delighted to know that we come to what is an entirely new and different concept, or principle, in the operation of the Bill. I hope we shall now be able to have his opinion whether he thinks it is an advantage or not because quite honestly we in the Committee, and I think that means many people on both sides of the House, were concerned to ensure that reports emanating from the Monopolies Commission should be produced as quickly as possible.
The stage for these next three Amendments is set very much by what the Federation of British Industries said when this Bill was published. On the question of speed they said:
If mergers are to be examined before they are completed the examination must be made very quickly indeed if it is not to make the merger impossible.
This is really the whole basis of this Amendment, to try to ensure that the right sort of mergers which can bring greater efficiency to British industry are possible and can be brought about without delay. It will be seen that what we are suggesting is that we should insert into the Bill the possibility that a preliminary report on the matter referred to should be made within two months of it being referred, stating whether the Commission are satisfied there is prima facie evidence warranting further investigation or whether they can give a view within two months.
I believe that in most mergers it ought to be quite possible for the Commission to report within eight weeks. As a parallel I use the references to the Prices and Incomes Board which are completed in under eight weeks. These mergers are possibly just as important and it really must be in the interests of the Government to try to ensure that we can get evidence and obtain a view, I do not say verdict, about the merger, preferably within the two-month period. Rather than tie the Commission to saying absolutely within two months, this Amendment allows the Board to be able to give

a prima facie judgment and say there is need for greater evidence and for further investigation. This would allow the Commission to take the extra period to make its final report.
2.0 a.m.
It is important to understand the reason for this necessity. In certain instances where firms are about to merge, where the level of production and consumption combined would be above one-third or where the financial limit of £5 million would be exceeded, the smaller firm, perhaps with a production of only 5 per cent. and a capital of only £½ million, might well be open to bid, take-over or merger with another company and the joint enterprise might not fall within the scope of a reference to the Monopolies Commission.
There might be a merger between firms A and B which requires reference to the Commission, but, while the acceptability of the merger is being considered, firm Z might make a bid for firm B because those two would not fall within the scope of reference to the Commission; the President of the Board of Trade would not have power to make the reference in this kind of merger. We are giving rise to the possibility that where larger firms might wish to merge with small firms, if they believe that there will be a long delay in the making of a decision they might well not bother to go ahead with the unification of parts of the industry with which they are concerned. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance to obtain speed.
Secondly, it is obvious that if we ensure speed, there will be little necessity for unscrambling. If speed is achieved, we will obviate this much more difficult problem. In some of our debates, there is reference after reference by the Minister of State to the importance of being able to stop mergers rather than having to unscramble them. From this viewpoint alone, the Amendment should commend itself to the Treasury Bench, because we are obviously attempting to meet part of the Government's view.
Rather than give further examples, I have, I hope, explained concisely the aim of the Amendment. The other Amendments which we are taking with it are consequential. I hope that the Government may be able to surprise us all by


accepting the Amendment. Although it was drafted by one of my legal colleagues, the Government might not agree with its precise terms. If there were some minor alteration the Government wanted to make to the Amendment, then provided they accepted the principle of the Corn-mission, where necessary, having to report within two months or make a prima facie report, we would be more than happy to withdraw the Amendment and allow the Government to introduce another in another place to cope with the matter.

Mr. Jay: I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman's purpose in this case; we all want to make the procedure as speedy as possible, and not to leave firms in a state of uncertainty; but I am afraid that, having examined these three Amendments, it seems clear to us that they would have the opposite effect of that which he intends. What he is proposing, substantially, is that the Commission should be required to make a preliminary report within two months of a reference. It would be required to do this, not just permitted to do it. What, in effect, the preliminary report would do would be to state whether there was a prima facie case for supposing that the merger would be contrary to the public interest. That, of course, is precisely what the Board of Trade would do in deciding whether to refer or not to refer the merger in the first place. If there were not, in the view of the Board of Trade, a prima facie case, it would not refer that case. If the Commission were then to spend two months in considering whether there was a prima facie case it would merely be repeating the process which the Board of Trade had already gone through. The net effect, therefore, would be to insert three stages instead of two stages in the whole operation.
The Board considers whether there is a prima facie case. If there is it refers it to the Commission. The Commission, within a six months' period normally, makes up its mind. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, the Board of Trade has to decide whether there is a prima facie case; then within two months the Commission has to decide again whether there is a prima facie case, and, if it thinks there is, it will have to proceed to its substantive examination.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commission from coming to a conclusion within six weeks or eight weeks that there is, after all, no prima facie case, and forthwith informing the Board of Trade of that view. Therefore, by this Amendment I think we should be inserting a third and unnecessary stage into the procedure.

Mr. Peter Emery: I find it somewhat hard to follow the logic of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Darling: Impossible! It was perfect.

Mr. Emery: It was not perfect logic. We are not inserting an extra stage, because we are not withdrawing the power of the Commission to make a final report within eight weeks. We are not taking away the power of the Commission to finalise its report within eight weeks.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman will agree that he is requiring the Commission to make a preliminary report? Therefore, though he is not taking away the existing powers, he is imposing a further duty upon it.

Mr. Emery: I think there is a misunderstanding about this, because I do not think it is logical, if the Commission is able to make its final report within two weeks, to suggest that there is anything in the Amendment which makes it, before producing its final report, produce a previous—a prima facie—one.
There is nothing in the Amendment which requires that. It requires that if there has not been a final report within eight weeks, a prima facie statement must be made by the Commission. I do not want to pursue this argument too far, but that is our intention. I do not want to bring in the complications to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and that is why I said that I did not think his statement was logical. I cannot see why, as long as the end product is achieved within eight weeks, we have to have a prima facie report. It is only if the end-product is not achieved within that time that there must be a prima facie report from the Commission.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again, because we both wish


to obtain the same result. There will be an extra stage only if there has not been a finalised report within eight weeks, and that extra stage will of course help the firm to know where it stands. This is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of easing the Commission's operations. Even if the right hon. Gentleman argues, which I do not think he can, that the Amendment does not do what I intend it to do, he knows what I am trying to do, and I should like his comments on that.

Sir J. Eden: In practice, I think that companies contemplating a merger will, if they think that it is likely to be the subject of reference, take the precaution of having discussions with the Board of Trade before things get very far advanced. I should have thought that it was at that stage of the discussions that as it were a prima facie case would be made out, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that six months is clearly too long a period.
I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that this is a maximum figure, and that if the Commission's findings can be made known at any point earlier than six months that will be done, but I hope that it will not be necessary to take as much as six months to produce a report, because this would be subsequent to the point at which terms had been agreed between the interested parties, and there might well be a change in the circumstances under which the merger terms had been agreed. If the merging companies were required to hold up proceedings for as long as six months pending investigation by the Board of Trade, the chances are that they would say that there was no point in proceeding with the merger.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants that to happen, and there must, therefore, be some alteration to this proposal to allow the Commission six months in which to make its findings known. If the Amendment as drafted will not achieve what both sides want to achieve, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of making an appropriate Amendment in another place to ensure that there is no undue delay between a reference being made and the publication of the Commission's report.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Jay: My belief is that what I said earlier is correct. I will examine the issue again to make certain and make any change should that prove necessary in such remaining stages as there are of the Bill. I believe that the position is as I have said.

Mr. Peter Emery: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for that. With that undertaking I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Higgins: Encouraged by the undertaking made by the President of the Board of Trade in the last debate, I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 11, line 3, leave out from "within" to "or" in line 4 and insert:
such period, not exceeding six months, from the date on which the reference is made as may be specified by the Board of Trade in the reference".

The Speaker: It would be convenient if we also discussed Amendment No. 46, in page 11, line 6, leave out "six months" and insert "the period specified in the reference".

Mr. Higgins: The object of these two Amendments, as in the previous debate, is to speed up the procedure which is undertaken when a merger comes up for consideration. It was agreed in Committee that we should find in most cases that the proceedings could be carried out satisfactorily in less than six months, certainly in less than nine months, and that generally speaking the period of six or nine months would be the maximum period which would be required for the investigation.
Bearing in mind what was said in Committee, the object of these Amendments is to enable the Board of Trade to insert in place of the words "six months" a specific time in which it would hope to receive a report back from the Monopolies Commission. If it were found impossible for the Commission to report in the time specified by the Board of Trade, then clearly they would be allowed to apply for an extension. It seems to us on this side of the House and I would think on the other side as well that there is a grave danger that unless these investigations into proposed mergers are carried out with speed, mergers which


are in the public interest and which may lead to greater efficiency in the economy and greater competitiveness in export markets, may not take place simply because negotiations have broken down by the time they have been referred to the commission, considered and referred back.
For this reason I hope that the Minister of State will feel he can accept our Amendments.
I would also like to clarify a point made by the President of the Board of Trade in the previous debate which seems relevant to this debate as well. As I understand it, he is proposing that the Board of Trade shall carry out a prima facie investigation on the basis presumably of facts presented to him by the firms concerned, and he is then going to decide whether or not to refer it to the Commission. When replying, could the Minister of State make clear whether if the Board of Trade looks into the prima facie case and decides that they are not going to refer it to the Commission, whether this can effectively be taken as a negative clearance, provided no new facts become apparent subsequently, in which case, of course, the whole matter would fall to the ground and would have to be reconsidered? It would be reasonable for the firm to go ahead on that basis. I think that what the President was saying indicates that this was his intention, but as it is not written into the Bill in that form, I hope we will have that point clarified when the Minister of State replies.

Mr. Darling: The questions that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has put to me at the end are not strictly relevant to this Amendment, but I can assure him that after examination if the Board of Trade come to the conclusion that the merger is not going to be sent to the Monopolies Commission, everyone will know that the merger is not to be sent. What will happen in practice, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said, is that the firms concerned will be in touch with the Board of Trade, the matter will be discussed within the Board of Trade and they will know what the situation is.
There are practical difficulties about the Amendments. I disagree with the

suggestion that the Amendments will speed up the work of the Commission. The practical difficulty is that when a reference is made the Board of Trade will not be able to say to a week or perhaps a month how long the investigation ought to take, because the investigation itself might throw up problems of great complexity. There might be intricate matters to be examined which were not thought of in detail when the reference was made, and time might be taken in assessing likely developments before making a reference which would, of course, prolong the total process.
It may be that firms under investigation, although not deliberately unco-operative, will be slow in bringing evidence forward. In most circumstances, as we see it, the Board of Trade would be compelled to play safe and to specify the six months maximum. But maybe it will not work like that, and I propose to shatter the House by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Emery: We are delighted to be shattered in that manner. The Minister of State says that he is compelled to play safe. His safest way is to accept Conservative Amendments, and we are delighted that he has done so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: May I inquire whether the "shattering" process also extends to Amendment No. 46?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.
Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 6, leave out "six months" and insert
the period specified in the reference".—[Mr. Higgins.]

Mr. Darling: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 11, line 26, at the end to insert:
(7) In determining whether to refer a matter to the Commission under this section, the Board shall have regard, with a view to the prevention or removal of uncertainty, to the need for making a determination as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The Amendment carries out an undertaking which we gave in Committee. It will require the Board of Trade to act with all due expedition in deciding whether to refer a merger to the Monopolies Commission. We agreed with views put forward in Committee about


the legitimate desire of firms and companies which may be involved in these processes to know as soon as possible where they stand, and the Amendment goes as far as I think it right to go to meet the views expressed in Committee.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I should like to ask the Minister of State a question. I must confess that I am not wholly sure that it arises out of the Amendment, but I hope that he will answer it. Is the Board of Trade, before the Bill reaches the Statue Book, prepared to entertain inquiries from industry about prospective mergers? If not, there is likely to be a gap after the Bill becomes an Act when inquiries are going on and before people will feel free to proceed with mergers which they have in mind.

Mr. Darling: For months the Board of Trade has been doing precisely this.

Mr. Emery: I should like to take up the cue of "all due expedition", which phrase was mentioned by the Minister of State. This meets the point on which he gave an undertaking to the Committee. By these Amendments we are making much more clear to the public and, indeed, to the Commission the need for speed, for all due expedition, and I shall do no more than welcome this Amendment and say that we are pleased to see it on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 39, leave out "either".

In line 44, leave out from "interest" to end of line 4 on page 12.—[Mr. Darling.]

Clause 7.—(APPLICATION OF GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT MERGERS.)

Sir Eric Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 13, line 17, at the end to insert:
() Section 3 of the principal Act, as applied by section 6, shall have effect as if, in subsection (4), the reference to bodies corporate becoming interconnected bodies corporate included a reference to enterprises being brought under common control otherwise than by reason of their becoming enterprises of interconnected bodies corporate, and to enterprises ceasing to be carried on as mentioned in subsection (1) above, and, in subsection (5), the reference to the division of a trade or business as therein mentioned included a reference to the separation, by the sale of any part of

any undertaking or assets concerned or other means, of enterprises which are under common control otherwise than by reason of their being enterprises of interconnected bodies corporate.
This is a drafting Amendment, consequential upon Amendments discussed on an earlier Clause.

Mr. Channon: This is a very difficult Amendment to understand at first sight, but, in view of the assurance that it is purely a drafting Amendment, I do not think we would be disposed to oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 13, to leave out lines 19 to 32 and to insert:
shall be deemed to have control of a body corporate if he or they have—

(a) the control of powers of voting on all questions, or on any particular question, affecting the body corporate as a whole which if exercised would yield a majority of the votes capable of being exercised thereon; or
(b) the capacity to exercise, or to control the exercise of any of the following powers, that is to say, the powers of a board of directors of the body corporate, power to nominate a majority of directors thereof, power to veto the appointment of a director thereof, or powers of a like nature;

or if he or they could obtain such control or capacity by exercise of a power exercisable by him or them with his or their consent".
We seem to be making such excellent progress and the Government are so co-operative that I have great hopes that as we move into Clause 7 dealing particularly with definition, we shall have helped the Government by putting down this Amendment dealing with the application of the general provisions about mergers.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will forgive my interrupting him. I think we clearly ought to discuss with this Amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 19, leave out "or materially to influence". No. 55, in line 26, leave out "or materially to influence", and No. 56, in line 29, leave out from "enterprise" to end of line 32.

Mr. Emery: That would certainly be to the convenience of this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
What we are trying to do is to make clear the powers of a group of persons who shall be deemed to have control of a body corporate. We consider that the definition at the moment is wide open.


We do not believe that this subsection deals in any sensible manner with a number of problems, and I hoped during the Committee stage that we would have these points met by the Government. I believe that the Government saw that there was a considerable amount of substance in our point of view.
I suggested that it was within the power of a Minister or a number of outside forces to influence a company but that they would have no real control or working power. Indeed, as the Minister will see, we have attempted to spell out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Amendment that the exercise of powers here is quite definite and precise.
2.30 a.m.
If I may just refer to Amendment No. 53 and those later to line 19 of Clause 7, it is quite obvious here that the words "materially to influence" might well apply to some person who really has got no control or place in that company whatsoever. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), with no control of the company, because he happens to know somebody or happens to live in a certain place, may be able slightly, but in a material manner, to influence the operation. It really is nonsense to apply this to him, if he has no control or power, and that he should be defined as someone "materially influencing" that specific aspect.
I am hopeful that with the spirit of co-operation that we may be able at this later hour to engender—perhaps somewhat against the content of a certain Motion on the Order Paper—that the Minister of State may be able to accept the Amendment. It really is quite amazing how much the House is able to achieve at these late hours. An immense amount of co-operation takes place between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. Only the people who are directly interested in the Bill are here, the experts are here, to discuss these particular subjects. Therefore, I am hopeful the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Darling: At this late hour, I will not try to point out to the hon. Member for Reading that, taking this group of Amendments together, the Amendments are defective in drafting. For instance,

one of the defects is that Amendment No. 54 refers only to bodies corporate and therefore would not catch a partnership.
The important point is that during the Committee stage the Government gave an undertaking that we would look at the words "materially to influence" to see if we could find another form of words that would meet the objections raised in Committee. We have considered this provision very carefully indeed, but we still believe that it is desirable to keep the reference to "materially to influence" for all the reasons that we gave during the committee proceedings.
It was suggested during those proceedings that the words "materially to influence" could be interpreted absurdly far. We have been advised by our legal advisers that in their context, the words would not be interpreted in that particular way. They would be applicable only in cases for which they are intended, where a person obtains substantial financial influence in a company although failing to have effective control.
We explained in Committee, as the hon. Member will remember no doubt, that we had in mind developments of this sort which had the effect that previously independent undertakings would be liable in future to be directed by a common mind, and if there is to be legislation on mergers it is our view that a transaction of this kind should be open to scrutiny like any other merger in which full control of a company is acquired by another. We have gone into the matter carefully but we have not been able to find words which would achieve the purpose more aptly than those which are in the Bill. I advise the House to reject the Amendment on this substantial argument of policy quite apart from the fact that the drafting is defective.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8.—(NEWSPAPER MERGERS.)

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, Amendment No. 61, in page 14, line 42, to leave out "weekly" and to insert "relevant".
I think that this is the weekly newspaper, is it not?
The Amendment deals with weekly newspapers and arises out of discussion in Committee where we undertook to table an Amendment which would bring


weekly local newspapers within the scope of the Bill. We were impressed by the arguments which were advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and we agreed that if we could possibly find a form of words which would allow us to deal with local weekly newspapers we would do so. This and other Amendments carry out that undertaking.

Mr. van Straubenzee: For the general convenience of the House, might we also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 64 and 65? I think that the Minister of State would agree that they are consequential.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases. It is a trick on the Minister who was allowed to speak to one only, but if it makes no difference, so be it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I would be lacking in courtesy if I did not express my appreciation to the Minister. It was I who proposed in Committee the Amendment upon which these Amendments are based and which bring local newspapers within the ambit of the new and improved provisions of the Clause. I follow the difficulty which the Minister has had in finding a definition of what we all understand by the words "local newspaper" but the final wording of the Clause is now a little cumbersome, for it reads:
For purposes of this section 'newspaper' means a daily, Sunday or local (other than daily or Sunday) newspaper circulating …
Even at a reasonable hour of the day one has to pause for a considerable time to work out what in heaven's name that means. If, before the Bill goes to another place, a shorter way of expressing the point can be found, it will be enormously for the convenience of anyone who has to work this Measure in due course.
It is common knowledge that the Opposition's proposal of this principle and the Government's acceptance of it has caused considerable anxiety in important sections of the Press. For instance, the Thomson organisation is contemplating extending the range of its evening local newspapers. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) and I are familiar with this since we are shortly to be in the area of one which is starting. I do not

believe that the House is acting unreasonably in bringing mergers of local newspapers within the ambit of these new and important provisions. We have not time at this hour to go into them properly, but we went into them in some detail in Committee, and I honestly do not believe that the fears of newspaper proprietors in this regard are valid. I hope very much that, as time goes on, they will feel that they are genuinely in the national interest, and I express my gratitude for what the Government have done.

Mr. John Hall: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in thanking the Minister of State for having brought forward these Amendments which give effect to the proposal which we made in Committee. Obviously, he has had difficulty in arriving at a definition, and it takes a little understanding, as my hon. Friend said. Perhaps a better form of words can be found before the Bill goes to another place.
When the Minister of State rose to move the first Amendment, he seemed a little puzzled at first about what the Amendments actually did. This shows the problem facing all of us in debating matters as complicated as these at this hour of the morning, and it gives force to the Motion which I sought to move earlier in the evening that we should report Progress. It is not easy to debate matters of this kind at such an hour, and one suffers sometimes a mental aberration which makes it difficult to argue or to follow argument. This is one reason why we should from time to time make certain that we rise at a reasonable hour. Nevertheless we welcome the Amendments, and we hope that the Minister will be as forthcoming on later matters as he has been on this.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 14, line 43, to leave out "three million" and to insert "five hundred thousand".
This Amendment is consequential.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Jay: The change from weekly to daily necessitates a change also in the figure. The figure of 500,000 daily corresponds, if I may put it in that way,


to the figure of 3 million which previously appeared in the Bill. Therefore, it is in that sense consequential.

Mr. Peter Emery: I understand that one could not leave the larger figure of 3 million in the Bill, but just to suggest that it is consequential is slightly to overplay one's hand. A figure had to be decided upon. Were the newspaper proprietors consulted? How did the Government arrive at the figure of 500,000? In considering this matter, it is important that the House should know why the Government decided upon this particular level. I do not think it is fair to say that this is merely consequential. It is not. It is a figure which ought to be established because of the weekly position, and I do not think it is consequential.
2.45 a.m.
What consultations has the Minister had before settling on this figure of £500,000, and, indeed, is this something which is generally agreed by those people in the newspaper world?

Mr. Darling: Of course, this is consequential. There is nothing remarkable about it; it is a simple matter of arithmetic and required no consultation with anybody. In case the hon. Gentleman does not understand it, a weekly newspaper is published weekly; that is, on one day out of every six. If one divides 3 million by six, one gets half a million. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Emery: The Minister of State cannot get away with that sort of reckoning. He has spent much of his own life with newspapers and he knows as well as I do that the relationship between a daily and national circulation and that of a weekly newspaper is not something which should be subject to a rule of thumb assessment of devising a figure for six days and dividing it in the hope of getting a logical answer. It may be an arithmetically correct answer, but it is no answer in logic, and does not meet the point which we are making.
The hon. Gentleman said quite frankly that there had been no consultations, and I think that is quite evident. I am aghast to hear that, introducing the weekly newspapers into this Bill, no more consideration was given to them than the making of just a rule of thumb division of an

arbitrary figure. Even at this hour, this is highly unacceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 57, line 43, to leave out "unlawful and".
With it, we shall discuss Amendment No. 69, in line 6 to leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 14, line 43, to leave out "unlawful and".
I rise more in sorrow than in anger, to move the Amendment, because it would have the effect of removing the criminal sanction from Clause 8 and, indeed, from all other parts of this legislation. My anger is reserved for the fact that we are discussing this new and dangerous provision at a time of the night when it is quite impossible to do it justice.
I would set out once again the objections which we have to this innovation. First, it is applied in the face of 17 years' experience of this type of legislation and directly against Section 11 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, which is specific in saying that
No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person by virtue of the making of any order … on the ground that he has committed, or aided, abetted … or conspired or attempted to commit … any contravention of the order.
The same is repeated in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, many times. It flies against what I thought was the bipartisan—if there had been a Liberal here I would have said "tripartisan"—determination in the 17 years not to imitate the American experience of introducing the criminal law into this part of our legislation. I think it is unnecessary. I see no reason why those who work for, with, by and on newspapers should be singled out in this way.
It is quite enough to provide a civil sanction for those who make any sort of attempt to get round the prohibition in Clause 8(1). It is quite enough that a transfer of a newspaper or of newspaper assets without reporting it to the Board of Trade should be void and unenforceable at law in the sense that the contract was unenforceable and that any money paid under it could not be recovered at law by the purchaser and, therefore, there


would be a very severe sanction to prevent the purchaser paying such money because in that case the vendor could keep not only the money but also the newspaper. It seems to me that that would be enough.
But if that is considered not enough, we have a divesting procedure, which has been provided in the earlier part of the Bill, to force a newspaper proprietor who infringed this provision to cough up what he was not allowed to acquire. We also have the procedure with mergers which could perfectly well be adapted to this situation. The President has, in my opinion, rightly insisted on a procedure relating to commercial and industrial mergers by which they can be held up pending an inquiry. I do not see why newspaper mergers and take-overs should not be subjected to exactly the same procedure, thus avoiding this heavy wheel of the criminal law.
The argument in favour of it is twofold. First, there is the argument that once a newspaper is taken over in this way, it cannot be revived—one cannot unscramble the egg—and, therefore, the divesting procedure is really unnecessary, or, rather, inefficient. But that, of course, is true of a fine or a term of imprisonment. One cannot by means of a fine or term of imprisonment cause any more successful divesting than one can by a divesting decree, and if the various sanctions which I have suggested are really enough, as I am sure they are, I do not think that this extra, unique and extraordinary penalty is correct.
The second argument is an appeal to authority, the authority of the Royal Commission on the Press. There it is stated, without having been argued, on page 110 in the following words:
If as we recommend, breach of the provision is to involve penalties enforceable in the criminal courts, it is important that there should be no room for doubt on the question whether the provision applied.
That is the only place, except for the summary of recommendations at the end, where this is referred to. It is a remarkable assumption, because there is no argument in the whole of the Shawcross Report about it. There is a mere assumption. I cannot believe that if the case had been argued instead of being assumed the Royal Commission would have reached this conclusion. In any event, of course, it was dealing with only daily

and Sunday newspapers and in the very first sentence of that paragraph the Commission says:
The limitation of the scheme to daily and Sunday newspapers would remove some of the difficulty of defining the subject matter of the transaction.
Later, the paragraph said that the definitions would have to be particularly tight and close throughout the provision if a criminal sanction could possibly be applied.
In fact, the definitions have been considerably widened by the inclusion of weekly newspapers and that again is a reason for having second thoughts about criminal sanctions. The matter becomes more complicated, but at this time of night it is difficult to explain the complications, when one considers the number of persons who may be involved in criminal proceedings. Subsection (4) puts
… any person who is knowingly concerned in or privy to any purported transfer thereof without the required consent …
in peril. This means that secondary parties—clerks, typists and people of that sort—are technically brought within the ambit of this law.
Of course, as it stands, and in spite of the Amendments we moved, the person concerned only has to know that a purported transfer takes place. He or she would not have to know anything about circulation figures or anything about a 25 per cent. shareholding, which is what defines a newspaper proprietor with a controlling interest. Nor would he have to know that it necessarily was even a transfer, because a transfer is defined in subsection (5), among other things, as a
… transfer of assets necessary to the continuation of a newspaper as a separate newspaper …
and he might not think that that was transfer of a newspaper at all.
This may seem fanciful but it is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that one does not put people in too wide a net of peril even though one never has any intention of prosecuting them. That principle seems to be very considerably breached by this provision and it is one which could be justified only on the ground of extreme necessity. No sufficient justification was advanced in Committee and I hope that the Minister may somehow, in spite of the hour, lucidly explain the need for it.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in one respect only—and that is that it is impossible to do justice to this theme at this hour. The theme I should like just to do justice to is the theme that it is absolutely necessary that in the application of this Bill to Press mergers their prohibition should be buttressed by the full rigours of the criminal law. This matter was very fully debated in Committee and I will try shortly to answer the two points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
He referred to the Report of the Royal Commission and said, surprisingly it seemed to me, that no reason was given for the very clear statement of the Commission that the breach of the provision should involve penalties enforceable in the criminal law. He said that it was an assumption. On the contrary, it was stated as axiomatic, because it followed upon a very lucid exposition of the way in which this question of the freedom of the press had been applied in the United States. I cannot do better than summarise what is stated in the Report, in paragraph 339, where the closing passage from the judgment of Mr. Justice Douglas is quoted:
Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interest.
3.0 a.m.
In other words, when we speak of freedom of the Press we are speaking of the right of the public to free dissemination of the news. We are not referring to the freedom of the Press millionaires in their commercial interest to enter into combinations. I agree that the proposal involves treating the newspaper industry differently from industry in general and that is what we are doing.
The Royal Commission says that the reason for that is that the public interest, in relation to the newspaper industry, is different. That is why it is treated differently. As has been pointed out, if there is a newspaper merger it is impossible to unscramble it, and that is why there must be a severe deterrent instrument to prevent that mischief from arising.
One does not have an adequate deterrent effect if one merely relies on civil proceedings, nor would a fine be adequate to deter Press magnates from carrying through a merger. That is why, as has been found in America, and as was treated as axiomatic by the Royal Commission, the only way in which the public interest can be buttressed in this respect is if, differently from all other mergers, it has the sanction of the criminal law. For that reason, I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Minister without Portfolio rightly stated that it was impossible to do justice to this theme at this hour of the night, and it is clear he has done no justice to it by saying that a fine would not be enough of a deterrent, because that is exactly one of the deterrents he provides in his Bill, in subsection (4), which is one of the subsections we are seeking to delete. Since justice cannot be done to this important theme at this hour, I express the hope that it may be done in another place at a time when justice can be done to it by a sufficient number of persons in another place, with knowledge of this matter, because this debate has become a thin farce.
For that reason I do not think we should continue and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In page 15, line 9, leave out "to" and insert "so to continue".—[Mr. Jay.]

Mr. John Hall: I rise only to say that it would be discourteous of me not to acknowledge the courtesy of the Minister in giving effect to the Amendment that I moved, not quite in these words, during the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 12, leave out "or Sunday" and insert:
Sunday or local (other than daily or Sunday)".

In line 14, at end insert "or any part thereof".—[Mr. Jay.]

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, Amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 20, to leave out "six" and to insert "three".
I think we can discuss Amendment No. 67, in line 30 and Amendment No. 68, in line 33 with this Amendment. The effect of the Amendments is to carry out an undertaking, also given in Committee at the request of various hon. Members, to substitute three months for six months as the normal period for consideration of a Press merger, as opposed to a non-newspaper merger. As a result of these Amendments, in the case of a non-newspaper merger the normal period will be six months with a possible extension to nine months and in the case of a Press merger it will be three months with a possible extension to six months.

Mr. Peter Emery: Even at this late hour, I think it only right and proper that we should thank the Government for considering the point. Although they would not accept our Amendment in exactly this form when we moved it in Committee, they have now seen fit to implement our proposals. As the President of the Board of Trade will realise, I felt strongly about this in Committee. I am grateful to the Government for seeing reason, and we will be delighted to support them in any Division which they might want to call.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 30, leave out "six" and insert "three".

In line 33, leave out "six" and insert "three".

In page 16, line 37, leave out from "and" to end of line and insert:
in subsection (1) above, the reference to relevant circulation is a reference, in relation to a newspaper published on any given day, to the circulation of that newspaper as published on that day, and the reference to average relevant".—[Mr. Jay.]

New Schedule.—(PROCEDURE PRELIMIN ARY TO LAYING DRAFTS OF ORDERS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 3(10)(A) OF THIS ACT.)

1. Where the Board of Trade propose to lay before Parliament a draft of an order under section 3 of this Act containing, amending or revoking provisions made for any purpose mentioned in subsection (5) of that section, they shall cause notice of their intention to do so to be published in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette, and in two or more daily newspapers, not being local newspapers, and they shall not lay a draft of the order until the expiration of the period of forty-two days beginning with that on which the publication of the notice in accordance with this paragraph is completed.

2. A notice under the foregoing paragraph shall—

(a) state that it is proposed to lay a draft of the order before Parliament;
(b) indicate the nature of the provisions to be embodied in the order;
(c) name a place where a copy of the draft may be seen at all reasonable times;
(d) state that any person whose interests are likely to be affected by the order and is desirous of making representations in respect thereof should do so in writing (stating his interest and the grounds on which he wishes to make the representation), before the date of the expiration of the said period of forty-two days (specifying that date).

3. The Board shall consider any representation that is duly made with respect to the draft order and is not withdrawn, and, after the expiration of the said period of forty-two days, may lay the draft order in the form in which it was made available as stated in the notice in compliance with paragraph 2(c) above, or in that form subject to such modifications as appear necessary to the Board to ensure that the rights and interests of persons likely to be affected by the provisions of the order are so adjusted as to secure an equitable distribution of any burden or benefit ensuing from any provision of the order.—[Mr. Jay.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1.—(THE MONOPOLIES COMMISSION.)

Amendments made: In page 20, line 10, at end insert:
but the Board may from time to time by order made by statutory instrument increase the maximum number of members to such number as the Board think lit".

In line 17, leave out from "years" to end of line 18 and insert:
(exclusive of any previous service of his on the Commission)".

In line 27, at end insert:
(4) A statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

In page 23, line 44, leave out from "place" to end of line 46.

In page 24, line 42, leave out paragraph 12.—[Mr. Jay.]

Schedule 2.—(REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 26, line 7, column 3, leave out "Section 10(2)" and insert:
In section 10, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), the word 'either' and the words from 'or (ii) not earlier than' to the end of the paragraph; and subsections (2)"—[Mr. Jay.]

3.11 a.m.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this stage I shall say only that this is a Bill which has been broadly supported by all parties in this House, on Second Reading and, in general, throughout the subsequent proceedings. It has certainly been very fully argued, both in Committee and on Report, and I pay tribute straight away to the contributions made from all quarters of the House.
Briefly, what the Bill does is to strengthen and sharpen the Monopolies Commission. It gives the Government power, on the advice of the Commission, to check those few mergers and take-overs which are found to be against the public interest. All this is, of course, permissive. It is not a Bill to condemn or stop monopolies or mergers. It is a Bill to ensure that public control is substituted for pure market forces in deciding in a certain number of cases whether they go forward or not.
I do not know how the impression got abroad that because the Government introduced this Bill we are, therefore, arguing on the assumption that all or most monopolies or mergers are bad. I made it perfectly clear, I thought, on Second Reading, that this was not so. I said:
The Bill is conceived in the belief, which I think is common to all parties,"—
as I said again today—
that neither monopolies nor mergers are always bad. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 1207.]
But because we are often impressed by the argument in favour of size, of the economies of scale, and mass marketing, in the present competitive world, it certainly does not follow either that size is always beneficial or that mergers are always desirable. Some mergers, like most restrictive practices, are wholly or mainly designed to restrict competition, and that, in my view, is bad not only for the consumer but for the economy as a whole. Foreign take-overs have been mentioned. I should like to make it clear—I do this in response to an hon. Member opposite who asked me a question at rather the wrong moment—that the Government will, of course, always act in accordance with international law, including any treaties to which we are parties.
I hope that soon after this Bill becomes law the Commission can be rapidly expanded, that a number of new references can be made to it, and that its work may be thus accelerated, as the whole House wishes.
I have recently received from the Commission its Report on retail sales of petrol and this will be published as soon as possible. I am now referring—and the hon. Gentleman mentioned this today—rayon and also the supply of flat glass and two other issues to the Commission so that its work can continue uninterrupted. We mean to press on as quickly as we can. I shall, therefore, be inviting people with qualifications and experience to accept appointments on the enlarged Commission, and on the standing panel for Press mergers. I am grateful, therefore, for the contributions which hon. Members on both sides have made to improving the Bill, and, for the reasons that I have given, I believe that it will give a powerful stimulus to keener competition, and therefore greater efficiency in British industry.

3.16 a.m.

Mr. Barber: Apart from one question which I posed to the right hon. Gentleman, which seems a good many hours ago, this is my first intervention today, although, apart from attending some meetings in the afternoon, I have sat here throughout most of the debate.
Listening to the debates, it seemed a long time since I spoke first for the Opposition when we considered the matter on Second Reading. I knew at that time that I was likely to be concerned with certain aspects of the Finance Bill. I did not serve on the Committee, and I therefore decided to take no part in the Report stage, and I am pleased that I did not, because it has been apparent to me that my hon. Friends know much more about this subject than I do.
The issues, as I have listened to them during the course of today's proceedings, seemed to have a certain familiarity with the issues which we debated on Second Reading, although the arguments seem to have changed somewhat. The matters on which we differ are well known to us all, so I need not go over them. Generally speaking, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the unfailing courtesy which they have shown, at any rate during the course of today's proceedings when I have been present. I also thank my hon. Friends for what I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree—indeed he said so—has been very constructive criticism.
It is unfortunate that the Report stage had to be taken, in part at any rate, in the middle of the night. This is due to the mismanagement of the Government's programme. It is not the responsibility or the fault of Ministers from the Board of Trade, and therefore I can in all sincerity conclude by wishing them and of course you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a speedy return home.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

IMPORT DUTIES (FATTY ALCOHOLS)

3.18 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1170), dated 24th May. 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, be approved.
The effect of the Order is to increase from 10 per cent. ad valorem to 20 per cent. ad valorem the full rate of import duty on certain forms of fatty alcohols as defined in more technical terms in the text of the Order. I am sure that the House will feel that this is a highly invigorating subject to bring to its attention at this hour. I shall try not to expend too much impassioned oratory on it, but I think that I should explain why the Order is considered to be necessary.
The alcohols concerned are used mainly for the manufacture of detergents of a type that has only recently been developed on a large scale. I think that the House will be aware that traditional detergents produce a good deal of lather and that the persistence of their foam when passed through sewage works and discharged into rivers has given rise to very considerable inconvenience and anxiety.
Hon. Members will be familiar with photographs in the newspapers of foam covering our rivers from bank to bank, and I recall reports from the United States of water coming foaming from the taps in people's homes, although I have not heard of any such incidents in this country. Nevertheless, this subject has given rise to considerable concern. The trouble is that this detergent foam, that which arises from the detergents currently in use, is not easily destroyed by bacterial action, or to use what is the technical term, is not bio-degradable as is foam from soap, so that it persists for a long time instead of disappearing after the detergent has been used and has been carried away in the sewage system. There is a Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents, I understand, under the auspices of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which is currently examining the problem, as indeed it is being examined in other countries.
Certain so-called soft detergents, to give an ordinary layman's term—that is detergents which quickly lose their foam when discharged into rivers or through sewage systems—are known but, until recently, the cost of producing them has been too high for them to be competitive, except in special fields such as the production of shampoos and liquid detergents. Some two years ago a British firm, appreciating the growing need for such detergents and anticipating an increasing market for the materials from which they are made, invested considerable sums in setting up modern plant to produce the fatty alcohols which are the subject of the Order we are discussing. This plant—and I think the firm is to be congratulated on its initiative in tackling what is undoubtedly a problem—took advantage of technological advances which made it possible, given large-scale production, to produce fatty alcohols suitable for the manufacture of these so-called soft detergents at a cost which rendered them able to compete with the older types which produce persistent foam.
The British firm found that it had to face severe competition from overseas. There are two reasons. Almost simultaneously with the establishment of the British firm, a new German firm set up in the same field, whose capacity, taken together with that of the existing German


producer, was many times in excess of the requirements of the German domestic market. I have been given some figures but I will not weary the House. In these circumstances, it was not unnatural that our German competitors should make exceptional efforts to capture the United Kingdom market, and should offer goods at prices cut to the lowest possible level—prices which the British manufacturers have to meet in order to compete in their own home market, and also in export markets in third countries.
Secondly, the British firm suffers a further disability in as much as it has higher costs than its foreign competitors, because it has to pay more for its raw materials. These are primarily natural animal and vegetable oils and fats which in this country are dutiable at rates of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. ad valorem, giving very valuable preference to Commonwealth suppliers, whereas in other countries no import duties or very low ones are payable. In Western Germany the duty ranges from only 0·6 per cent. to 1·8 per cent. ad valorem.
There is a further factor which I think justifies this Order. That is that the British firm is located in a development district and it employs one-fifth of the male workers in the town concerned. Further, subsidiary occupations depend on the prosperity of the firm and its employees. The position is that a new industry has been established at considerable initiative and foresight on the part of a British firm and at considerable cost, to make a product for which there should be a growing demand throughout the world. If successful, it may be expected to make a valuable contribution to our balance of payments, both by exports and by import saving. This industry is socially desirable both because of the contribution it can make to eliminating pollution of rivers and maintaining a pure water supply, and also because it gives much-needed employment in a development district.
The enterprise was, however, threatened by great pressure from imports at particularly low prices, while at the same time the British firm had to overcome the initial obstacle of paying more for its raw materials than do foreign competitors. In those circumstances, after the most careful inquiry, we have concluded,

as I am sure the House will conclude, that the industry ought to be given tariff protection at a level which would offset the disadvantage of relatively high import duties on its raw materials. This has been done by the Order, which I commend to the House.
I have explained that the tariff is not bound under G.A.T.T. We have no international obligations against it. While it may appear inconsistent in a sense with our objective in the Kennedy Round to increase any tariff at this time, there must always be some exceptions, and we believe this tariff to be truly of an exceptional character in the interests of the domestic economy. The volume of trade involved, I am advised, is small, and as our exceptions list in the Kennedy Round is much the shortest of any of the main industrial countries, nobody can say that by this action we are impeding the widest possible settlement in the Kennedy Round. In all the circumstances, I commend the Order to the House.

3.27 a.m.

Mr. John Hall: The Minister will forgive me if I suggest that he had a very long brief for this time of night. I listened with interest to his lecture on chemical reactions, and if I had not already been here for 12 hours I should have been able to absorb the details of the chemical reactions more intelligently than has been the case.
He went to considerable length to justify this protective tariff—which is what it is—and to explain that it is only a little one and that it did not depart from our general attitude on the Kennedy Round and towards creating a wider Free Trade Area. But he will agree that all protective tariffs must increase the prices of finished products. The consumer will be asked to pay more as a result of a protective tariff which would not be imposed were it not necessary to keep out similar products at a lower price.
Although I concede that it is sometimes necessary to have a protective tariff to allow a developing industry to get off the ground, the Minister will agree that this method should be used sparingly and only when the production concerned could not be contemplated unless the protection were afforded. The Minister will


also agree that the protective tariff should not be maintained longer than is absolutely necessary to enable the industry to become competitive.
May I ask some specific questions? First, is the United Kingdom producer concerned a large or a small company? Is the amount which it has put into present production and is likely to have to put into continuing research, large in relation to its resources? If it is a small company and the amount is very large in relation to its total resources, and if it has to spend a great deal of its potential revenue on research, the case for protection is much stronger than if protection is being given to a very large company with adequate resources to carry it over the period until it can become more competitive with exporting countries. Is West Germany the sole or main competitor?
Is legislation likely to be produced by the Government to require detergent manufacturers to introduce the necessary chemicals which will prevent the foaming to which the Minister referred and which we all regret? We all know the problems which are created in sewage works and rivers by the foaming, in many cases the unnecessary foaming, of detergents which are poured into our sewers. Do the Government intend to introduce legislation which would make it essential for manufacturers to introduce chemicals to prevent foaming? If so, it will open up for the manufacturers of these chemicals a very large and profitable market. In those circumstances any reasonably sized firm in this country, with all the advantages of its inner lines of communication and the present protection of the 10 per cent. surcharge—which I have a faint suspicion may continue a little longer than at first expected—should be able to compete successfully in such a large potential market without being given a protective tariff. If there is only one producer in this country, which I understand is the case, is this likely to lead to a monopoly position which would draw it to the attention of the Monopolies Commission because it would be the only manufacturer of that product in this country?

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before the Minister replies, may I add one more question? Over

the years I have had to read the Reports of the Cremer Committee, the Committee to which the Minister of State referred, on this problem of biological oxidation of detergents in sewage works. That Committee has studied the problem at considerable length. There have been experiments on the River Lea at Luton, which were nothing like as conclusive as the promoters had hoped, but one must now accept that the biological soft detergent is one which must be introduced in the interests of river and sewage purification.
Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the recent report, I think from America, which suggested that there were some undesirable by-product effects of the soft detergents in their effect on fish life in the rivers into which sewage is deposited? It seems to me that this is a development of which not all the implications have been fully studied, and here the Government are now proposing to give substantial tariff support to the manufacturer of this material in this country. Are the Government satisfied that all the technical aspects of this have been thoroughly explored? Has the Cremer Committee recommended that this tariff support should be given in the interests of the manufacture of fatty alcohols in this country?

Mr. Redhead: I agree entirely that powers of this kind should be used sparingly. It is only after the most careful consideration that we are satisfied that this is an exceptional case which warrants the proposed protective duty. There is no fear that this firm will in any sense become monopolistic in its operations under this minor increase in tariff protection. Indeed, the firm has given satisfactory assurances that it does not intend to increase its prices unnecessarily, but only to be competitive.
The firm is able to point to its experience with regard to other manufactures where prices have been substantially reduced. The firm is not a large one by the normal criterion of measuring firms of this character. It is a modest firm working in a development district, but it has committed considerable investment to the development of these fatty alcohols and, therefore, it is justified in receiving the measure of protection proposed.

Mr. John Hall: May I press the Minister on one point before he resumes his seat? I do not think he answered it, possibly due to an oversight.
Could he tell the House whether the amount of expenditure involved was a large proportion of the resources available to the company? I want to get down to the absorption of non-fatty alcohol as soon as possible and, therefore, I do not wish to detain the House any longer than necessary, but I should be grateful if I could have an answer to that question.

Mr. Redhead: I cannot give precise details, but I am advised that the amount is considerable. On the further point concerning general legislation to prevent the pollution of rivers, together with the question raised about fish, these are obviously subjects for the technical committee to which I have already referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Imports Duties (General) (No. 4) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1170), dated 24th May, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, be approved.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS [MONEY] (No. 2)

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the making by employers of payments to employees in respect of redundancy, to establish a Redundancy Fund and to require employers to pay contributions towards that fund and to enable sums to be paid into that fund out of the Consolidated Fund, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund or raising by borrowing of such sums as may be required to be so issued or raised in consequence of any provision of the said Act of the present Session whereby, subject to a limit of £20 million on the aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal in respect of the advances, the Treasury may make advancs out of the Consolidated Fund to the Minister of Labour for the purposes of the Redundancy Fund.—[Mr. Jay.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received this day.

PORTLAND STONE INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

3.37 a.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I represent that part of what used to be the English countryside that was once represented by Sir Christopher Wren, the most distinguished of all our Dorset Members; and I like to think that if from the Elysian Fields he is listening to us tonight he will be content with what we shall say.
Portland contains an island people who think of the Queen not as Queen of England but as the Lady of the Manor of Portland. To Portlanders we are kimberlins—strangers. The Portland people, like so many island peoples, are men of strength, skill, tolerance and individuality.
I want to raise tonight the question of Portland stone. Portland stone is part of the capital wealth of this country and it must not be wasted any more than we waste coal or iron. It is an indigenous natural resource and it must be our duty, as with previous generations, to see that we cherish the natural resources we have inherited. We have a great heritage. Our minds turn to the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall of Indigo Jones, to the great churches of Wren, to the Bank of England, Bush House and right up Kings-way and Holborn—all across England we see Portland stone. The Roman Catholic Cathedral at Liverpool, St. John's College, Cambridge, Brasenose College, Oxford—all derive their beauty from Portland.
Still today, in the modern idiom, the American Embassy, the Economist building in St. James's, are built of Portland stone. Our stone has crossed the ocean and the United Nations building in the United States of America is built of Portland stone; and so is the Rotterdam Cathedral and the Sabena building in Brussels. Recently stone firms have taken a joint share in Belgian masonry works and opened up markets in the Low Countries and Germany for Portland stone.
It is one of our most ancient industries but it is also one of our most modern. Many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on capital equipment.
This industry blends craftsmanship and mechanisation. Research is constantly devising new techniques. A recent development is one in which one-inch thick stone-faced giant precast concrete panels have been used, for example for the Crawley Civic Centre which was recently opened by the Queen.
Portland stone is specialist material. It is appropriate to great buildings, to universities, schools, municipal buildings, office blocks, stores, banks and hotels, and—I emphasise this—the workers in it are part of our national inheritance of skill. In this tiny island of Portland there is a great tradition of stone masons which is vital to us and vital to the maintenance of the fabric of this House.
That is the industry and those are the people. Against that background I want to say a few words about the present and, though I do not seek to be controversial, I must report that the Labour Government have, since they assumed office, done a measure of damage to the people of Portland and its industry. I speak of the sudden ban on office building in the London area. There has always been in London a constant demand for Portland stone. The stone firms have always tried to take account of that demand in planning their budgeting and expansion.
The Government's keynote, and rightly, is the word "plan", but how can a firm plan if at such short notice as this a substantial proportion of the work which it would normally expect to be doing is cut off?
It is reasonable to ask what alternative proposals the Government have to replace that work. When that ban was announced had the Government even considered the economic effects? Do the Government even now know what is happening in Portland? Not long ago 400 men used to be employed in masonry works. Today that number has gone down to 250. I do not seek to make a point about unemployment. These men have found other jobs often at reduced pay. There is no substantial unemployment in Portland, but I make the point as important that if we once begin to run down that highly-skilled stone industry with all its inherited skills we will not so easily bring it up again.
We have made tremendous efforts over the years to get young people to enter the industry. The apprenticeship scheme itself may now be at risk. Parents become nervous of the prospects. There is in most years competition between apprentices who seek to be masons. In the last competition the tiny island of Portland entered 30 apprentices and the whole vast population of London with all its teeming millions could produce only eight. Here is the measure of importance of Portland to the whole conception of producing masons as they must be produced. If, therefore, these masons do not come forward in an even flow a great industry can be in danger and with it the buildings owned and maintained by the National Trust, Oxford and Cambridge colleges, cathedrals, all our architectural wealth which depend on adequate supplies of masons.
I here pay tribute to the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, to the chairman of its masonry section, Mr. Sanderson, and to Mr. Booth and Mr. Trevett on the quarrying side who have done a great deal of work, as indeed have the employers, in supplying me with the sort of information which I seek to convey to the House tonight. I am responsible for what I say and not they, but I am authorised to say that all of us who love Portland are exceedingly anxious about what may come.
May I put to the Minister what I believe to be the direct connection between housebuilding and the use of Portland stone? We all know that the conventional building trade is overheated. One of the difficulties in producing the number of houses which we want produced is the shortage of labour and materials. Here is a means by which that overheating could be reduced. It must be wrong that a substantial part of the building industry, such as Portland represents, should be under-used although it could take a great load off the conventional housing programme. Here is one figure to indicate what the surplus capacity is. Our capacity has been, and still is, to produce between 7,000 and 8,000 cu. ft. of stone a week. We are now producing 4,000 cu. ft. Here is unused building capacity which, I hope, the Minister will be able to put to proper use. For every stone


building erected by the stone firms conventional building resources are released for house building.
My second practical point is price competitiveness. We are all conscious of the importance of this in Portland. I have little doubt that the Ministry has read and studied the fascinating speech by Dr. Stone to the R.I.B.A. He drew attention in his research to the amount of money and resources now being spent on repairs. The great advantage which Portland stone buildings have over conventional buildings is that the repair bill for many years is almost nil. Dr. Stone pointed out that, on average, about one quarter of the total cost of the ordinary non-stone building would go on maintenance. Therefore, if comparisons of cost between Portland stone and other buildings are to be made, something like a quarter of the cost should be added to the initial estimate for the non-stone building to give a fair picture.
To put the same point in a slightly different way, I imagine that the Minister realises that we are spending today about £1,000 million a year on repairing buildings, and by a great part of that sum we are diminishing the amount of resources, whether of labour or materials, which ought to go into new house building. Further, each year that figure goes up. Therefore, I emphasise the importance of making the uttermost use of materials which have, in effect, little or no maintenance cost. This is one of the ways in which the Portland stone industry could help to solve a national problem and add to the stock of houses, an increase in which we all want to see.
The policies of some Governments, of no matter what party, has tended to encourage a situation—I am sure that it is unintentional—which has a damaging effect on the stone industry. If a builder puts up a badly built office block which will need annual repair at high cost, the amount spent each year on repairs will be allowable against Income Tax. Hence, it may be financially preferable to put up a bad building, and it is a fact that some people do just that. On the other hand, if having foresight and taking a long view, one puts up a building in Portland stone or a building intended to last in good order for a long time, the repair bill will be low; but there will

be no initial Income Tax allowance in respect of it.
I realise that this is more a Finance Bill matter than one for an Adjournment debate, and I mention it only so that the Minister may have a chance to consider it, as I have put down an appropriate Amendment to the Finance Bill which I hope will be considered. It is wrong that the Government should encourage the erection of buildings on which the repair bill is heavy when, as I say, about £1,000 million a year is already being extracted from the building industry and devoted, needlessly, we suggest, to repairs instead of going into the building of new houses.
Now, exports. The sums here are modest, but we have been exporting in a single month as much as £20,000 worth of stone to the Low Countries and elsewhere. We make our contribution to the export trade. I am sure that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would agree, if he were here, that that contribution could be greater if the industry received the encouragement which it ought to receive.
At one time, it was wealthy private individuals who gave great building contracts. That time has gone. It is no longer in the hands of the private individual to give the assistance for which we look. Nowadays, it is the Ministry of Works and other Government Departments or, perhaps, the great institutions which have in their hands most of the letting of contracts for the large prestigious buildings in which we are interested. We are living in a decade, we all hope, in which part of the inspiration of our times will come from the erection of new universities, new schools, new libraries, new hospitals and new civic centres.
Ahead of us there is all this, and I ask the Minister to say that these buildings shall be worthy of the generation in which we live. I speak of beauty in buildings, for aesthetic considerations should have their part as much as anything else and I submit, in conclusion, that the people of Portland—those who work in this industry and who, in many cases, had fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers in the same trade—have deserved well of their country. Here is a reservoir of skill, diligence, and strength supported by capital resources of


a high order; here is mechanisation as modern as any in the world.
Here, in short, are the men and the materials, insufficiently used at a time when the building industry is overstretched. I hope that the Minister will say that he will make the utmost use of these materials and men.

3.52 a.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: Those hon. Members who have remained for this debate will, I am sure, feel indebted, as I do, to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) for having raised this most important subject. Stone is, of course, a very important component in the building industry, but it has tended to be neglected because of the advance of other means of building, and particularly because of the use of what we now call industrialised systems. But, from what the hon. Member has just said, he appears to blame part of the reduced demand for stone in the construction industry on to the Government for their decision to control office building.
I suggest to the House that this is not a correct analogy. At the time that this decision was taken there was full cognizance of the fact that the building industry would be fully employed, despite this control of office construction. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the use of stone in present-day construction. For many years it has been one of the chief components in the construction of very large buildings, particularly in the City of London, which attract much attention from tourists who come here.
It is in the interests of the construction industry that stone should continue to play a full part—a vital part—in the realm of building, but there is the point that, in the term of previous Governments, there has been some neglect of this section of construction work. The affairs of the stone industry have been fully understood in the recent past, but there is great difficulty in recruiting apprentices to carry on this trade, which is one of our greatest crafts. If we are not very careful, especially when there is a shortage of other building materials, in utilising the stone industry to its greatest capacity we shall run the risk of not being able

to meet the growing demand for development throughout the country.
I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind when raising this aspect of construction that this is not a problem which is peculiar to Portland. We realise the domestic problems with regard to Portland, but we ought also to appreciate that it is, in addition, a national problem. We have the stone centres of Scotland, Shap and other areas where there are very important resources available to be utilised in the completion of the building programmes envisaged by the present Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend who will reply to the debate will agree that it is absolutely essential for the completion of the building programmes that we have in view that stone should be utilised to its fullest possible extent.
Finally, I suggest that it may be somewhat premature for the hon. Member to have raised the subject at this time bearing in mind the possibility—I suggest this to my hon. Friend—of negotiations being undertaken between representatives of the Government and the stone industry, the employers and the trade unions responsible, for the fullest utilisation of the valuable product of stone in our forthcoming building programme.

3.56 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) for raising this matter and for his courtesy in letting me know the outline of his speech.
I am not a complete foreigner to Portland. My grandfather was born there, and, in fact, ran away to sea from Portland. In those days things were much more difficult then they are now, and it is doubtful whether he could have found a living there in those harsh days.
Fortunately, employment in the stone industry in Portland, as the hon. Member said, is good. Perhaps I should explain to the House that the Bath and Portland Stone Group, with its head office at Bath, operates in Portland through three companies: Dorset Limestones Ltd., a quarrying and transport undertaking; Stone Firms Ltd., which runs masonry shops and yards; and Portcrete Ltd., which manufactures precast concrete


products. I visited that firm in Portland with the hon. Member's predecessor, Mr. Guy Barnett, in the spring of 1964. So I had the opportunity of renewing my acquaintanceship with Portland fairly recently.
What seems to be happening is that Stone Firms Ltd., is reducing its labour force and Portcrete is recruiting a good many of them. Thus, Stone Firms Ltd. discharged 53 men in August, 1964, but only 13 registered as unemployed, and they quickly found other jobs, the majority of them with Portcrete Ltd. This month 18 more workers were given redundancy notices, but 17 found other work before the date of discharge, and only one man, a stone machinist aged 63, is registered as unemployed. During the last year Stone Firms Ltd. has run down by about 130, but Portcrete has increased its labour force by about 80, taking many of them from Stone Firms Ltd. While I would be the last person in any way to diminish the difficulties caused by unemployment, the situation in Portland is therefore very different from that in some other parts of the country—indeed, in my own constituency.
Portcrete Ltd. has a very well organised factory for industrialised systems. Its interests are best served by long runs of orders, and, of course, this is the policy that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and my own Department are anxious to encourage. To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), what seems to be happening with the Group in Portland is that it is working out a sensible system with regard to both the traditional use of stone and the mechanisation and industrial use of systems, as Portcrete Ltd. is doing.
The general employment situation in the area as a whole is satisfactory. On 14th June, 159 men were out of work in the area. The total unemployed was 199, or 1.2 per cent. This was rather better than the situation a year before under the last Administration.

Mr. Evelyn King: I was not making any point about general unemployment. The transfers are to jobs at lower wages. I was concerned with the case for the masons.

Mr. Boyden: I am coming to that. I was anxious to demonstrate the position that, whatever may be happening in the stone industry, although it may be causing some dislocation to a very limited number of people it is not serious at the moment. A year ago there were 174 men out of work, a percentage of 1·3 per cent. I do not make a great point of that but the situation was slightly worse a year ago than today.
Of the present unemployed, only four men and one boy had last been employed in pre-cast concrete manufacture and there were seven vacancies for workers of that type. There were no men out of work in quarrying and transport and no vacancies.
As for the present position, on 9th June there were general vancancies for 310 men and a total number of vacancies of 576. The difficulty in the stone industry is that there is a shortage of masons. In the country as a whole in May, 1965, there were 31 masons wholly unemployed and there were 113 unfilled vacancies. Again, this is slightly better than in May, 1964, when there were 47 wholly unemployed and 150 unfilled vacancies.
The industry is doing very well. The Bath and Portland Group in 1958 had, after tax, profits of £86,000; in 1963 this was £200,000, and in 1964 the profits were doubled to the highest figure since 1958—£409,000. I pay tribute to the way in which the group has produced a balanced economy between the Portcrete part of the company and the traditional part.
The Chairman's Report for 1959 said:
A great deal of mechanisation had already been put in hand last year, but since then further mechanisation has been and is being carried out to enable natural stone masonry to complete successfully with the challenge of synthetic wall-cladding materials. This has been fully justified and natural stone is not only holding its own but demand for it is increasing steadily.
The Government's control of office building in London is not having any effect yet. Possibly it will in future, but the effect will be gradual. There is still a large volume of office building work contracted for and this will go on. I agree that stone is a pleasant building material and, indeed, I looked up a little book I was very fond of called


"Purbeck Shop—A Stoneworker's Story of Stone" by Eric Benfield. I think that it reflects my own feeling and accords with that of many other people. It says:
A stone house, even if it is only a low stone cottage, has something of the monument about it. … That stone is carved out of the solid and not manufactured puts it on a different footing from any other building material.
The difficulty is that taste has changed and presumably the hon. Gentleman would not wish the Government to legislate for taste. It is conceivable that modern taste for the Vickers Building in preference to the Foreign Office may change. Victoriana seems to be coming back, even Victorian Gothic. Therefore it is quite possible that natural changes in taste, which the Government can hardly legislate for, may produce the situation the hon. Member wants.
My Department is a good patron of Portland stone. It is using it in the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Custom House reconstruction, in the Chelsea Hospital north-east wing, and in No. 36 Whitehall. Equally, the Department is using the Porcrete artificial stone, capstone, in the beams and columns of the large office block in Horseferry Road and at the Brentford County Court. The Horseferry Road development is a large block of Government offices. My Ministry has a continued interest in the working of stone and the preservation of the skills needed in the maintenance of historic buildings. Not only do we do our own, but we also advise private owners and we make grants for repairs. I was pleased to see in the

last company report that there was a section which said that the Bath Company is doing very well on the building restoration side.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly stressed the lower cost of maintenance in stone buildings. He has already conceded that this is a more appropriate matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to deal with and, if he is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I have no doubt he will put the case. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problem and will no doubt give the hon. Gentleman an answer.
The fact is that Portland stone has to be competitive. It would seem as though its costs are something like 5 to 12½ per cent. higher than other materials. It is also true that maintenance costs are not sufficiently well established. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that my Department is setting up a committee to study the whole question of maintenance. I am taking the chair on this committee and it is hoped that, as soon as possible, we shall be able to establish what the true costs of maintenance are and perhaps whether there is some tax—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes past Four o'clock a.m.